Promoting new articles and the process of evaluation

The journal has always focused on the thematic diversity of published articles. For this reason, every year, in addition to the contributions of fellow museographers, invitations are sent to other researchers from both the local and national level. By diversifying the areas of cultural interest, our publication has gradually managed to attract more and more authors specialized in different epochs and historical periods.

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

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 sent 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 considerations made. 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:

C.S. 1 dr. Ioan Stanciu, Institute of Archeology and History of Art of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca
tel: 0741033376

C.S. 1 dr. Călin Cosma Institute of Archeology and History of Art of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca
tel: 0742037166

C.S.1 dr. Adrian Ioniță, Institute of Archeology „Vasile Pârvan” of the Romanian Academy, Bucureşti
tel: 0722776776

Prof. univ. dr. Sorin Şipoş, Faculty of History, International relations, Political sciences and communication, University of Oradea
tel: 0745584865

Conf. univ. dr. Ion Cârja, Faculty of History and Philosophy, University „Babeș-Bolyai” Cluj-Napoca
tel: 0744241847

Prof. univ. dr. Sorin Liviu Damean, , Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Craiova
tel: 0745815831

C.S. I. dr. Andi Mihalache, Institute of History „A.D. Xenopol” of the Romanian Academy, Iași
tel: 0742939833

Prof. univ. dr. Florin Muller, Faculty of History, University of Bucureşti
tel: 0721185572

C.S.I. dr. Ottmar Trașcă, , Institute of History „George Barițiu” of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca
tel: 0740346984

Conf. univ. dr. Liliana Rotaru, Faculty of History and Philosophy, State University of the Republic of Moldova
tel: (373) 22 73 74 42