Role of the Reviewer

Reviewers contribute to maintaining the academic quality and integrity of works published in Cunoașterea Științifică.

Peer review is intended to provide the Editorial Board with an independent and reasoned assessment of a manuscript and to provide authors with constructive comments that may help improve their work.

The journal normally uses a double-anonymous peer-review process.

1. Accepting a Review Invitation

A reviewer should accept an invitation only if they:

  • have sufficient expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
  • can provide an objective assessment;
  • have no relevant competing interest;
  • are able to meet the deadline requested by the journal.

If the reviewer is unable to carry out the review, they are asked to decline the invitation as soon as possible in order to avoid delaying the editorial process.

The journal normally requests a response to the invitation within 7 days, and completion of the review within 21 days of accepting the invitation.

If an extension is required, the reviewer should contact the Editorial Office.

2. Professional Competence

Reviewers should evaluate only those aspects of a manuscript for which they have sufficient expertise.

If parts of the manuscript fall outside their area of expertise, they should inform the editor.

3. Independence and Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where financial, professional, institutional, academic, or personal relationships may affect their objectivity.

If there is any doubt, the reviewer should inform the editor before accepting the invitation.

4. Confidentiality

A manuscript received for review is a confidential document.

The reviewer must not:

  • distribute the manuscript;
  • discuss its contents with unauthorized persons;
  • use unpublished data, methods, or ideas in their own work;
  • contact the authors directly;
  • attempt to determine the authors’ identities;
  • retain or use the documents for other purposes after completion of the review.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or substantial parts of it to public generative artificial intelligence services or other external systems that may store, process, reuse, or use the content for training purposes.

Responsibility for the review remains with the reviewer.

Use of auxiliary technical tools must not compromise manuscript confidentiality or the independence of the review.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Depending on the nature of the work, the reviewer should consider:

  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • originality and academic contribution;
  • clarity of objectives;
  • methodology;
  • quality of argumentation;
  • analysis and interpretation of results;
  • use of relevant literature;
  • accuracy of references;
  • structure and clarity of the manuscript;
  • consistency between results and conclusions;
  • possible ethical or integrity concerns.

7. Comments to Authors

Comments should be:

  • clear;
  • reasoned;
  • constructive;
  • respectful;
  • focused on the academic content of the work.

Personal attacks, offensive language, or discriminatory comments are not acceptable.

Criticism should address the manuscript, not the author.

8. Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional sources when these are genuinely relevant to improving the manuscript.

Reviewers must not request citations:

  • to artificially increase their own citation counts;
  • to favor a particular journal;
  • without a justified academic relationship to the manuscript.

9. Plagiarism and Other Integrity Concerns

If the reviewer identifies:

  • possible plagiarism;
  • duplicate publication;
  • manipulation of data or images;
  • suspicious references;
  • authorship problems;
  • other possible integrity violations,

these concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor.

The reviewer should not investigate the case publicly or contact the authors directly.

10. Editorial Recommendation

The reviewer may submit the recommendation made available by the editorial system.

The recommendation should be supported by the comments in the review report.

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final decision on the manuscript rests with the Editorial Board.

11. Review of Revised Versions

A reviewer may be invited to assess a revised version of the manuscript.

In such cases, particular attention should be paid to:

  • how the authors responded to reviewer comments;
  • the changes made;
  • important issues that remain unresolved.

12. Recognition of Reviewing Activity

The journal may recognize reviewer contributions through means compatible with the confidential nature of the peer-review process.

Publication of a reviewer’s name in a general list, if the journal decides to maintain such a list, must not make it possible to associate that reviewer with a particular manuscript.

13. Relationship with the Journal

Occasionally accepting a peer-review invitation does not automatically imply membership of the Editorial Board or Scientific Advisory Board.

Likewise, a member of either body who accepts a peer-review invitation must comply with the same requirements concerning independence, confidentiality, and competing interests as any other reviewer.

14. Acceptance of Responsibilities

By accepting a review invitation, the reviewer confirms that they have read these responsibilities and agree to carry out the evaluation in accordance with the editorial policies of Cunoașterea Științifică.