Instruction to reviewers

Reviewers are independent in their work and their main task is to evaluate each individual paper that is delivered to them, thus contributing to the improvement and maintenance of the high scientific research outreach and ranking of the magazine itself, as well as of the authors of the articles.

The reviewers generally have an equal or higher rank (scientific or teaching title) than the author of the paper being reviewed.

The review process is a two-way anonymous and is conducted by two independent reviewers for each individual paper (Double Blind Review). The reviewers are anonymous to the authors, and the authors are also anonymous to the reviewers. Anonymity approach is a very important prerequisite for ensuring a high level of autonomy and objectivity of reviewers. The review content and procedure are considered confidential and the reviewer, as well as other members of the editorial board, must not disclose any details from the process to the third parties. Reviewers have a three-week deadline (21 days) to submit a review in writing to the editorial office, on a prescribed form that has the following elements:

Paper code /number:

Paper Title:

Assessment of the originality of the paper:

Assessment of the actuality, social and scientific importance of the theme:

To what extent is the theoretical and methodological framework of the paper detailed and explained:

Evaluation of the used scientific literature, contemporary and scientific relevance of literature:

General observations on the quality of the paper:

Proposal for categorization of the scientific paper:

Approval for publication of paper.

Suggestions for the author to improve the quality of the paper (optional):

Choose one of the recommendations for the given paper:

  1. Publish without modifications
  2. Publish with minor changes
  3. After the correction, send the paper to a new round of reviews
  4. Refuse

Notes to the Editor regarding general, methodological and especially ethical (plagiarism) aspects of e paper:

Date of evaluation of the paper:

Name, surname, scientific title and signature of the reviewer:



            Instructions for Classification of Scientific Papers


Classification of articles is an obligation of the editorial board. The article classification may be proposed by reviewers and editorial staff, that is editors of the sections, but the responsibility for the classification is borne solely by the editor-in-chief. Articles in the journal are classified into the following categories:

Scientific articles:

1) Original scientific paper (a paper which presents previously unpublished results of one’s own research by the scientific method);

2) a review paper (a paper containing an original, detailed and critical presentation of a research problem or  an area to which the author has made a certain contribution);

3) a short or preliminary report (an original scientific paper of full format, but of a smaller scale or of a preliminary character).

Exceptionally, in some areas, the scientific paper in the journal can take the form of a monographic study, as well as a critical edition of scientific material (historical-archival, lexicographic, bibliographic, data review, etc.), previously unknown or insufficiently accessible for scientific research.

Papers classified as scientific must have at least two positive reviews. The journal also publishes extracts of the extra-curricular character, and for this reason scientific articles are grouped and printed clearly separated in the first part of the Journal.

Professional articles:

1) Professional paper (an appendix offering experience useful for improving the professional practice, not necessarily based on a scientific method);

2) Informative appendix (editorial, comment, etc.);

3) Review (books, computer programs, cases, scientific events, etc.);

4) Scientific critique or polemics (discussion on a particular scientific topic based exclusively on scientific argumentation) and reviews.