- Dettagli della rivista
Starting in 2011, the journal appears biannually. Since the first publication in 2002, 9 issues have been published, containing academic studies and reviews that reflect the development of the most important phenomena in the Romanian, British, French or Italian Literature, Literary Criticism, Linguistics and Cultural Studies. The Executive Editor of the journal is Prof. Iulian Boldea, PhD, Dean of the Faculty of Sciences and Letters from Petru Maior University Tirgu-Mures and head of the Modernity and Postmodernity in 20th Century Romanian Literature Research Center. Prof. Iulian Boldea is also a CNCSIS accredited assessor in the Commission for Social Sciences. During its nine years of publication, the journal has contributed to the drawing and development of scientific research at Petru Maior University in the field of Philology. A great number of studies and reviews generated by theoretical and applied research was published, more than 40 studies written by foreign contributors being published during the last three years. The editorial board is formed of prestigious members of the Romanian Academy, foreign and Romanian professors with remarkable reputations. Among the constant contributors are numerous personalities of Romanian and European culture, as well as professors and researchers from abroad.
Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.
The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process.
BOLDEA IULIAN, UMFST G.E. PALADE, ROMANIA
BUDA DUMITRU-MIRCEA, UMFST G.E. PALADE, ROMANIA
Editorial Advisory Board
Acad. Nicolae Manolescu – University of Bucharest, Romania
Prof. Alexandru Niculescu, PhD – University of Udine, Italy
Prof. Virgil Nemoianu, PhD – Catholic University, Washington DC, USA
Prof. Vladimir Florea, PhD - IUFM, Versailles, France
Prof. Nina Zgardan, PhD – University of Chişinău, Moldova
Prof. Ana Hoţopan, PhD, University of Szeged, Hungary
Prof. Ion Pop, PhD - Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Prof. Mircea Muthu, PhD - Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Prof. G.G. Neamþu, PhD - Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Prof. Virgil Stanciu, PhD - Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Prof. Iulian Boldea, PhD, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Prof. Al. Cistelecan, PhD, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Lecturer Dumitru-Mircea Buda, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Prof. Cornel Moraru, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Assoc Prof. Smaranda Ştefanovici, PhD, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Assoc. Prof., Luminiţa Chiorean, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Lecturer Corina Bozedean, PhD, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
Lecturer Eugeniu Nistor, PhD, UMFST G.E Palade, Romania
De Gruyter Poland
Bogumiłła Zuga 32A Str.
01-811 Warsaw, Poland
T: +48 22 701 50 15
The contributions sent for publication to Studia Universitatis Petru Maior. Philologia are analyzed by a Reviewing Comission formed by Acad. Nicolae Manolescu, Prof. Alexandru Nicolescu, PhD, Prof. Cornel Moraru, PhD., Prof. Al. Cistelecan, PhD., Prof. Iulian Boldea, PhD., Assoc. Prof. Ramona Hosu, PhD.
Consequently to the assessment of the scientific and ideatic content and to the establishment of the degree of originality and novelty promoted by the respective studies and articles, the comission will decide the publication in Studia Universitatis Petru Maior. Philologia. The materials that do not meet the publication requirements might be returned to their author in order to improve their content and form.
The reviewing process is based on rigurous criteria of performance, content and expression, aiming to publish only the results of research that are genuinely competitive on a national and international level.
One of the most important criteria is the degree of insertion in the contemporary trend of approach proved by the article. Thus, the contributions that will be prioritary are those providing, by their premises, theoretical positions and direct references on which they are built, a distinctive integration in the contemporary debate of ideas, as well as interest for innovation and originality.
Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure
All manuscripts sent for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles, spontaneous submissions, and invited papers). The Managing Editor of the journal will perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask our authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief of a journal or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue). Accepted articles are copy-edited.
Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors.
Rating the Manuscript
Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:
- Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?
- Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?
- Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?
- Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
- Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the Journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the journal)
- Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?
Manuscripts submitted to Acta Marisiensis. Philologia should meet the highest standards of publication ethics:
- Manuscripts should only report results that have not been submitted or published before, even in part.
- Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without appropriate citation.
If reviewers become aware of such scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the in-house editor immediately.
Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:
- Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
- Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
- Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
- Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.
Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal editors, not to the authors.
Review reports should contain:
- A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.
- Broad comments highlighting areas of strength and weakness. These comments should be specific enough for authors to be able to respond.
- Specific comments referring to line numbers, tables or figures. Reviewers need not comment on formatting issues that do not obscure the meaning of the paper, as these will be addressed by editors.
Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves or close colleagues when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review.
Your comments should not include an indication of whether you think the article should be accepted for publication. For further guidance about writing a critical review, please refer to the following documents:
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.
- Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.
- Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online.
- Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Available online.
Studies and articles submitted for publication in the journal are brought to the attention of the Review Committee, composed of foreign and national professors, members or correspondents of the Romanian Academy.
The analysis of the scientific content is carried out through rigorous scientific criteria, aiming at promoting a certain degree of novelty and originality, accuracy and proven scientific rigorousness of materials submitted by the authors to the editorial team. We aim to promote articles regarding areas of international scientific interest as well as encouragement of research done by academics at home and abroad.
The articles submitted are reviewed by external experts before being published, using a peer review system. The Editorial Board retains the right to reject articles that do not meet academic requirements or send to the author the article to be revised, in order to meet the requirements of the review. We do not accept articles which have been published, or have been submitted for publication in other journals or volumes.
The Editorial Board assumes no liability whatsoever for the opinions expressed by authors in their articles. The authors assume full responsibility for the published text regarding intellectual property rights and other rights that may occur.