ISSN: 1016 – 2798, Frequency: annual, CNCSIS Category: B+ (2010)

colt caseta colt caseta
  • Reviewing method

    The peer evaluation of the articles given for publishing is very important. The studies participating to this evaluation are considered to be credible, since they were analyzed by different experts for each domain. The main objectives of the articles’ evaluations aim to reveal the quality of the study and the eventual improvements that should be brought by the author, in order to match the demands of the review.

    The review process is described as follows.

    In an initial stage, each study is evaluated in an internal process. The review’s editorial secretary assigns each study to an editor from the institution, a specialist in that field, who makes a first examination. The study can be accepted or rejected by the editor due to several reasons, some of them well grounded, such as: publishing somewhere else, the subject does not belong to the editorial’s main theme, the article has no original contributions, it contains incorrect information, does not respect the publishing conditions. This process lasts one or two weeks, and then it is send for an external evaluation, in case it is considered that the manuscript presents interest for the editorial and respects all publishing conditions.

    The external evaluators are selected in accordance to their personal contributions to the study domain that was proposed for publication. The potential evaluators are contacted and asked by the editorial secretary if they accept the proposal. Those who accept, receive the study by email. Each paper is verified by two specialists in the field. The names of the evaluators and their considerations regarding the paper remain unknown for the author of the study. At their recommendation, the manuscript can be accepted or rejected. When it is considered that the necessary changes are minor, the study is sent back to the author for revise, and so to be ready for publishing. After the evaluation in the “peer review” system, the editors consult about the content of the considerations. Based on evaluators’ recommendation, the editor in chief and the editorial secretary decide which articles will appear in the current number, which are postponed and which are rejected.

    The editorial collective is not compelled to give explanations for the articles rejected from publishing, The editorial secretary will announce the authors about the decision taken.

The list of the reviewers

  1. C.P.1. Florin Gogâltan, Institutul de Arheologie şi Istoria Artei Cluj Napoca al Academiei Române, tel: 0747255568; mail:
  2. Conf. univ. dr. Ovidiu Ghitta, Facultatea de Istorie-Filozofie, Universitatea “Babeş-Bolyai” Cluj Napoca, tel: 0741036353; mail:
  3. Prof. univ. dr. Ovidiu Pecican, Facultatea de Studii Europene, Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, tel.: 0742838281; mail:
  4. Prof. univ. dr. Sorin Liviu Damean, Facultatea de Ştiinţe Sociale, Universitatea din Craiova, tel: 0745815831; mail:
  5. Prof. univ. dr. Ion Zainea, Facultatea de Istorie, Geografie şi Relaţii Internaţionale, Universitatea din Oradea, tel: 0748584709; mail:
  6. Prof. univ. dr Mihai Drecin, Facultatea de Istorie, Geografie şi Relaţii Internaţionale, Universitatea din Oradea, tel: 0729132474; mail:
  7. Prof. univ. dr Florin Muller, Facultatea de Istorie, Universitatea Bucureşti, tel: 0722359206; mail:
  8. Prof. univ. dr. Sorin Şipoş, Facultatea de Istorie, Geografie şi Relaţii Internaţionale, Universitatea din Oradea, tel: 0745584865; mail:
  9. C.P. 1 Stelian Mândruţ, Institutul de Istorie "George Bariţ" din Cluj-Napoca al Academiei Române, tel: 0746480640; mail:

top of the page

colt caseta colt caseta
site map