Peer Review Procedure
-Review Mode: Anonymous Reviewer/Anonymous Author [This journal uses double-blind review].
-Reviewers will not be given access to the submission file until they have agreed to review it.
-Reviewers be sent a secure link in the email invitation, which will allow them to access the review without logging in. Access to other pages requires them to log in.
-Number of weeks to accept or decline a review request: 2.
-Weeks allowed to complete the review: 4.
-We do not accept articles that have been published or submitted for publication in other journals.
All articles are peer-reviewed. Submitted articles are read by two independent members of the international advisory board. The process of reviewing is confidential. Reports of the advisory board are anonymised. The report of the advisory board will be forwarded anonymously to the author.
The editorial board decides over the publication, conditional acceptance or rejection of the articles based on the reports of the advisory board.
Sacra Scripta - scholarly journal; studies are published in international languages.
Peer-reviewed starting with 2005
Please fill the online Evaluation form/or send it by email. The comments will be made available to authors. The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript will be made by the Subject Editor.
The authors will be announced on the acceptance or rejection of their papers and about the suggestions made by the reviewers. All papers are reviewed independently at least by two referees, but the authors are entirely responsible for the content of their papers.
The paper submission for the Studia UBB Sacra Scripta volumes are programmed as follow:
‐ For volume 1 the final papers will be received until the beginning of March;
‐ For volume 2 the final papers will be received until the beginning of October.
Evaluation Form (form for send by email):
Article Review Form
Please evaluate the articles submitted to our journal as follows (highlight your answer):
Article Review Form
Please evaluate the articles submitted to our journal as follows (highlight your answer):
ARTICLE TITLE:
1. Please write a short evaluation (from one paragraph up to one page).
(The relevance of the article in the field, its originality, other aspects.)
2.The title is clear and reflects the object of study.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
3. The abstract synthesizes well the content of the article.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
4. The introduction presents the relevance of the article for the given field and quotes the main results obtained by other authors concerning the subject.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
5. The methodology in use is coherently presented and there is a fair justification of it being preferred instead of other existent methodologies
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
6. The source of the database is reliable (official databases, representative samples, etc.)
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
7. The scientific contribution of the paper is original.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
8. The conclusions summarize clearly the results and the consequences.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
9. Recent and well-chosen (suitable) bibliography. There is a clear match between the bibliographic references from the end of the article and the ones quoted in the text.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
10. The vocabulary used is academic, without incoherencies or grammar mistakes.
1 – Excellent
2 – Very good
3 – Good
4 – Satisfactory
5 – Unsatisfactory
The recommendation for publication:
Accept Submission
Revisions Required
Resubmit for Review
Resubmit Elsewhere
Decline Submission
Date:
Signature:
The review report can also be sent by e-mail.
