Reviewers Guide

Articles sent for publication are emailed to the magazine’s contact address, that it is public on its internet site, with at least three months before magazine’s appearance.

After receiving the papers the editorial board perform a preliminary assessment, in which the priority is giving to the following editing requirements:

- check for plagiarism;

- thematic framing of the journals in the profile of the journal;

- the subject of the paper must be actual, to contain new, original elements;

- the scientific content of the journal must be consistent;

- the papers should not include political connotations;

- the papers will not present classified information;

- the authors can publish only one paper/number;

- the abstract of the paper will have among 100 and 200 words;

- each paper will have at least four keywords;

- the format conditions are respected.

The papers that do not meet these requirements are returned to the first author.

After this preliminary evaluation, the editorial board send the articles for evaluation to two scientific referents for each domain (Management and Marketing).

Articles are double-blind evaluated by experts in “peer-review” system. Experts fill an evaluation form.

    A. Evaluation Form

1 General comment
2 Introduction
3 Methodology
4 Results
5 Conclusions
6 References
1 to 5
1 Style
clear formulation, good English, the paper fits in the areas covered by the journal.
2 Knowledge stage is well documented
relevant and actual references, discussion based on papers cited
3 Methodology
existence of proper research techniques
4 The quality of the data
relevance and reliability of the data
5 Results
in accordance with the mainstream current, personal ideas, pertinent conclusions
6 Originality and scientific contribution

At last, papers will be included in one of the following categories:

For articles that must be reanalyzed, redaction secretary involves a third scientist. He sends to the first two a synthesis of form and background problems over they have to agree and requires them to write a common evaluation paper.

In the situation of a common paper containing the recommendation for publishing an article but with some suggestions, the third referee will address to the secretary. The latter, after depersonalizing the common evaluation paper, returns the article together with suggestions to the author, giving him some time for reconsidering his article.

Referees must focus on suggesting ways for improving articles’ content. These must be accurate, constructive, identify also the strengths, not only the weaknesses. Referees will adopt a collegial tone, showing the authors respect for their research effort.

Unaccepted papers will be returned to authors highlighting the reasons for rejection.

Accepted papers will be published in the current number of the magazine.