(beginning with vol. 18 / 2012)

                                               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Evaluation (Peer-Review) Process


After the arrival of the manuscript, the Chief Editor will notify the authors of receipts of the document, and the manuscript is labeled with a unique registration number (in the data-base of the Editorial Board).


Many factors are taken into account when evaluating manuscripts submitted for publishing, ranging from the qualitative to the quantitative.
Peer-review of the technical & formal editorial aspects
Each manuscript will be sent by the Chief Editor to the Editorial Assistant - responsible for completing the standard sheet on the technical and formal aspects of the manuscript, considering the following items/aspects:
                          1.      language of the manuscript;
                          2.      layout (size of the pages, width of margins);
                          3.      types and size of fonts used;
                          4.      characteristics of the titles (of the article and of the sections);
                          5.      details related to author/authors (names, addresses);
                          6.      characteristics (existence, number of words) of the Abstract & Key words;
                          7.      structure and text-characteristics of the narrative part of the manuscript;
                          8.      information on the funding source supporting the research presented;
                          9.      formal characteristics of the section on references (literature).

The report with the result of the analysis mentioned above is sent be the Editorial Assistant to the Chief Editor, who will check-out if the references are listed according to the guidelines from the Instruction to authors (link).
In case of manuscripts that do not conform to the technical and formal aspects described in the Instruction to authors, the authors are asked to correct the manuscript before submission the scientific peer-review.
If there is no need for corrections of the technical and formal aspects, the manuscript will be included into the scientific peer-review and the author will be informed by the Cheef Editor about this aspect.
Peer-review of the scientific aspects
Each manuscript will be sent to one or more (usually two) members of the Scientific Editorial Board (reviewers).
Recommendations of the Scientific Editorial Board members (related to the submitted manuscripts) will be based on all of the following items/aspects:
                       1.      the title of the manuscript is adequate (clear, concise and cogent);
                       2.      the abstract reflects the structure and content of the manuscript;
                       3.      key-words are adequate;
                       4.      the background/introduction is clear, concise and cogent;
                       5.      the section on material and methods is detailed enough;
                       6.      the methods are according to ethical issues in animal/clinical research;
                       7.      originality of the data;
                       8.      originality of the manuscript & result;
                       9.      use of internationally accepted signs and symbols for units;
                     10.      use of the international nomenclature (for zoology, botany etc.);
                     11.      properly constructed, clear, concise and cogent text of the manuscript;
                     12.      the results justify the discussions and conclusions;
                     13.      the references are properly cited in the text;
                     14.      the tables and figures are properly constructed;
                     15.      length of the manuscript is justified by the subject.
According to the results of these analyses, the Scientific Editorial Board members could recommend that the manuscript to be:
                     - accepted without revision, or
                     - accepted after minor revision (e.g. wording and/or editorial changes), or
                     - accepted, but after a major revision, or
                     - rejected for the volume to which the manuscript was submitted, but encourage resubmission, or
                     - rejected.
The Scientific Editorial Bord members will send to the Chief Editor the standard sheet that includes the results of scientific peer-review and the reccomendations. If there are inconsistencies between the recommendations of the reviewers, a third reviewer will be asked to review the manuscript.
Only manuscripts receiving favourable recommendations will be accepted for publication. Where referees indicate need for minor or major (significant) revision, the author(s) will be asked to re-submit a revised paper to the same volume of the Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute.
In case of manuscripts rejected by the Scientific Editorial Board with the remark to encourage resubmission, the author will be asked to re-submit a revised paper to the next volume of the Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute.
After editing of the manuscript is completed, an electronic version of the proof is sent to the author. If the author do not return promptly the proof (with eventual final corrections) to the Chief Editor, the manuscript may be published without the benefit of proof corrections made by the author.

                                               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Editorial policy
The Editorial Board of the journal Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute has as objective the achievements of the following standards:
timeliness of the journal Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute (publishing at the stated frequency);
fulfilment of international editorial conventions to optimize retrievability of source articles (fully descriptive article titles and abstracts, complete bibliographic information for all cited references, full address information for every author);
application of the peer-review process (that indicates the Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute standards and signifies overall quality of the research presented and the completeness of cited references);
to ensure high scientific quality of the article published in the Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute, by involving into the scientific evaluation of the manuscript persons that have educational backgrounds relevant to their areas of responsibility, they being also experts in the literature of their fields;
promotion of funding sources supporting the scientific researches (of which results are presented in the articles published in the Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute);

increase of international diversity among the journal’s contributing authors and editorial board members of the journal Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute.

                                             * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Fair play

the Editor-in-Chief and the reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors


the Editor-in-Chief, the members of the Editorial Board and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors of the manuscript, reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher as appropiate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the own research of the Editor-in-Chief or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.
Go to top
JSN Boot template designed by JoomlaShine.com