REVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS

For publication, each article is reviewed by the editorial team, checked whether the editing requirements were followed and if it is related to the topic of the review. In terms of the scientific content, each article (without the name of the author/s) is sent to two reviewers for evaluation.

The comments of reviewers will be sent to the author by the editorial board to make the necessary changes.

Then, the checked article is sent back to the reviewers.

If, at least one of the reviewers considers that the article does not fulfill the scientific terms of publication, the Editorial Board can refuse its publication.

The articles that are published in the CEJGSD Journal follow a double blind peer-review procedure. Each paper registered for publication is separately assessed and reviewed by two independent reviewers who will not be aware of the author’s identity. In their turn, the authors do not know the reviewers’ identity.

The scientific review is accomplished by outstanding specialists in the field of the article under review. The appointed scientific reviewers may belong to the scientific committee of the Journal or not (see the Referees' Board as well).

Having followed the editing requirements, the manuscript is sent to the two reviewers appointed by the editorial board for that respective topic. They must send their decision to the Editor within 15 days after they have received the manuscript to be reviewed.

The assessment criteria are mainly the following: relevance to CEJGSD profile;  contribution to the academic debate; focus and rationale of the paper; theoretical framework and related literature;  appropriateness of the research/study method; discussion and conclusion; relevance and clarity of drawings, graphs and tables; appropriateness of abstract as a description of the paper; use and number of keywords/key phrases; ethics; standard of English; clarity of writing, explanations, and concepts, suitability of illustrations and tables (too many, too few, clarity);  reference list, adequate and correctly cited.

The reviewer shall express his decision in one of the following terms:

  1. Definitely Accepted;
  2. Accepted with minor changes;
  3. Accepted with (major) changes and revision;
  4. Rejected.

Besides the reasons concerning the scientific content of the article, the reviewer may reject the manuscript whenever he/she as certains a case of plagiarism or compiling.

Your contribution of valuable time and energy is much appreciated by the editors and authors, as well as the readers oh this journal.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.