Cunoașterea Științifică uses a double-anonymous peer review process for the evaluation of academic manuscripts. Under this system, authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers, and reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.

The purpose of peer review is to help ensure the quality, originality, rigor, and academic relevance of the works published by the journal.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Each submitted manuscript first undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment.

At this stage, the Editorial Board may evaluate, as appropriate:

  • whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
  • the academic character and relevance of the work;
  • compliance with the journal’s general submission and formatting requirements;
  • completeness of the required metadata;
  • originality and possible significant overlap with other works;
  • compliance with publication ethics;
  • the presence of obvious problems concerning methodology, argumentation, or documentation.

Similarity checking may be used as a supporting editorial tool, but the result of a similarity report is not considered, by itself, proof of plagiarism. Any potentially problematic case is assessed in context.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, do not meet minimum academic standards, or present problems that prevent proper evaluation may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to one or more independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the work.

Reviewers may be selected from among members of the Scientific Board, the journal’s regular reviewers, or independent external experts.

Reviewer selection is based primarily on:

  • academic and professional expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • research or publication experience in the field;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of competing interests;
  • availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Authors may suggest reviewers at the time of submission. Such suggestions are advisory only. The Editorial Board is under no obligation to use the suggested reviewers and independently verifies their suitability and any potential conflicts of interest before assigning a review.

Authors may not condition the review process on the appointment or exclusion of particular reviewers, except where they provide a justified competing-interest concern.

3. Double-Anonymous Review

The journal normally uses double-anonymous peer review.

For this purpose, information that could identify the authors is removed from the version of the manuscript sent to reviewers, as far as reasonably possible.

Authors should also avoid including unnecessary elements in the manuscript that could reveal their identity during the review process.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors of the manuscript.

If an author’s identity becomes apparent and this could affect the impartiality of the review, the reviewer should inform the editor.

4. Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest that could affect their independence or objectivity.

Competing interests may include, among others:

  • personal interests;
  • professional interests;
  • academic interests;
  • institutional interests;
  • financial interests.

A reviewer should decline the assignment where there is a relationship that could compromise impartiality, including significant recent collaboration with the author, membership of the same institution, or a direct interest in the publication or rejection of the work.

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

5. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • distribute the manuscript to unauthorized persons;
  • discuss its contents outside the editorial process;
  • use unpublished ideas, data, or results for their own benefit or that of others;
  • retain or redistribute the manuscript for purposes unrelated to the review.

If a reviewer considers it necessary to consult another person regarding a specific specialist issue, prior permission must be obtained from the editor.

The duty of confidentiality continues after completion of the review process.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Manuscripts under review must not be uploaded, in whole or in part, to public generative artificial intelligence services or other external systems that may store, reuse, or use the content for model training.

This restriction is intended to protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, research data, and authors’ rights.

The reviewer remains responsible for the analysis, comments, and recommendation submitted to the journal.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Depending on the nature and field of the work, reviewers are asked to consider mainly:

  • relevance and fit with the journal’s scope;
  • originality and academic contribution;
  • clarity of objectives and of the research problem;
  • rigor and appropriateness of the methodology, where applicable;
  • quality of argumentation, analysis, and interpretation;
  • engagement with the relevant literature;
  • accuracy and relevance of bibliographic references;
  • structure and clarity of writing;
  • consistency between analysis, results, and conclusions;
  • compliance with standards of academic ethics and integrity.

For theoretical, philosophical, or conceptual works, methodological criteria are applied only insofar as they are relevant to the nature of the manuscript.

8. Reviewer Comments

Reviews should be objective, well supported, constructive, and respectful.

Reviewers should formulate their comments clearly enough to allow authors to understand the issues identified and the revisions recommended.

Criticism should address the manuscript and its academic content, not the author personally.

Where revisions are requested, reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between:

  • essential revisions required for the manuscript to be considered further;
  • optional suggestions that may improve the work.

Reviewers may suggest additional references when these are genuinely relevant. Requests for unnecessary citations, or citations intended to artificially increase citations to the reviewer, the journal, or other publications, are not acceptable.

9. Review Timelines

An invited reviewer normally has 7 days to accept or decline the review invitation.

After accepting the invitation, the indicative deadline for submitting the review is 21 days.

These deadlines are indicative. Depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, or other justified circumstances, the process may take longer.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified period, they are asked to inform the editor as soon as possible.

10. Reviewer Recommendation

Following the evaluation, the reviewer may select one of the recommendations available in the editorial system, which may include:

  • acceptance of the manuscript;
  • acceptance after minor revisions;
  • request for major revisions;
  • submission of a revised version for a further round of review;
  • rejection of the manuscript.

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory.

The final decision regarding the manuscript rests with the Editorial Board and is based on the reviews received, the authors’ responses, and the editor’s own assessment.

11. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised version of the manuscript and, where requested, a response to the reviewers’ comments.

The response should clearly indicate:

  • the changes made;
  • where those changes have been introduced in the manuscript;
  • explanations for comments that the authors consider justified not to follow.

Authors are encouraged to respond to all relevant comments in a reasoned and respectful manner.

In the case of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent again to the same reviewer or to another specialist for an additional round of evaluation.

12. Divergent Reviews

Where the reviews differ significantly, or where the editor considers that further clarification is required, the manuscript may be:

  • sent to an additional reviewer;
  • returned to the authors for clarification or revision;
  • examined further by the Editorial Board or by a suitably qualified member of the Scientific Board.

The final decision is based on academic quality and the integrity of the editorial process and does not result automatically from a simple majority of reviewer recommendations.

13. Editorial Decision

Based on the peer-review reports and other relevant information, the editor may decide to:

  • accept the manuscript;
  • request minor revisions;
  • request major revisions;
  • initiate a further round of peer review;
  • reject the manuscript.

The decision is communicated to the author through the editorial system, together with the relevant reviewer comments.

No manuscript is accepted solely on the basis of payment of a fee. The publication fee is requested only after final acceptance and does not influence the evaluation or editorial decision in any way.

14. Integrity of the Review Process

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to respect the principles of confidentiality, independence, transparency, and academic integrity.

Any suspicion of plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed competing interests, or other breaches of research ethics may lead to suspension of the editorial process until the matter has been clarified.

The journal follows internationally recognized recommendations and good practices concerning publication ethics and peer review.

15. Manuscripts Submitted by Members of the Journal Team

Editors, Editorial Board members, and Scientific Advisory Board members may submit articles for publication in Cunoașterea Științifică. Such manuscripts are subject to the same editorial criteria and peer-review process as all other submissions.

Where an editor or member of a journal body is an author or co-author of the manuscript, that person is fully excluded from the initial assessment, reviewer selection, editorial correspondence concerning the decision, and the final editorial decision. The manuscript is handled by an independent editor with no competing interest.

The manuscript continues to undergo double-anonymous peer review, with at least two independent reviewers, and the author’s membership of the journal team does not confer any advantage in the editorial process.