Deprecated: mysql_connect(): The mysql extension is deprecated and will be removed in the future: use mysqli or PDO instead in /var/www/html/aubsas.faa.ro/includes/adodb5/drivers/adodb-mysql.inc.php on line 364 ©AUB-SAS Journal

Universitatea din Bucuresti, Facultatea de Administratie si Afaceri


Double Blind Review Evaluation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indexed by :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISSN-L
ISSN (e)
ISSN (p)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Address

Elisabeta Queen
No. 4 - 12, District 1,
Bucharest, Romania

see area map

Phones

Tel: +4 021 310 49 20
Fax: +4 021 310 49 20

Email

aub-sas@faa.ro

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rewiewers Guidelines

 

A. Individual submission


AUB-SAS is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. Each paper will be subject to peer review process in two phases.

In a first phase, a member of the Executive Editorial Board will preliminary verify the paper if it is drafted according to Author Guidelines and if it falls within one of the areas of interest covered by the journal.

In the second phase, if the paper accomplishes these two prerequisites, it will be sent to two reviewers of the Advisory Editorial Board. The two reviewers will be chosen for each submission based on their academic expertise in the field and the quality of their previous reviews. If they accept the task they will have full access to the submission. The author does not know the name of the reviewers, just as they will not know who wrote the manuscript (double-blind peer review).

Reviews should be extensive and constructive, and reviewers should avoid making any derogatory and unprofessional comments. If, in the opinion of the reviewer, the manuscript is not publishable, the reviewer must make every attempt to provide extensive comments/feedback in regard to why the paper is not acceptable and to provide the authors with constructive directions. This is a professional service that we all provide to our colleagues in the hope of improving the overall quality of work in our discipline. All appropriate comments received are forwarded to the authors without revealing the reviewer’s identity.

The reviewers will fill out the following  

EVALUATION FORM:

Rate the manuscript:

Put an X on the line next to each factor to rate the manuscript, with an X close to “SD” taken to mean that you strongly disagree with the statement, and an X close to “SA” taken to mean that you strongly agree with the statement.  If a factor is not applicable, then put an X on „NOT APPLICABLE”.  You may add comments to justify your answer or modify the measure.
 
Strongly                      Strongly
Disagree                       Agree
SD:___:___:___:___:___: SA    „NOT APPLICABLE”
 
Significance*:
a) How important is the work reported? Does it attack an important / difficult problem (as opposed to a peripheral / simple one)?
b) Does it involve or synthesize ideas, methods, approaches from multiple disciplines?
c) Does it have interesting implications for multiple disciplines?
 
Originality*:
a) Is this a new issue?  Is this a novel approach to an issue?
b) Is this a novel combination of familiar ideas/techniques/methods/approaches?
c) Does the paper point out differences from related research?
d) Does the paper properly situate itself with respect to previous work?
e) Is the article’s degree of originality  according to journal's standards?
 
Quality*:
a) Is the paper technically sound?  How are its claims backed up?
b) Does it carefully evaluate the strengths and limitations of its contribution?
c) Do the title and the abstract correspond to journal's standards?
d) Is the article according to our template?
e) Are the references and the citations used correctly?
 
Clarity*:
a) Is the paper clearly written?  Does it motivate the research? 
b) How do you rate the English usage?
c) How do you rate grammatical construction, writing style, clarity of ideas?
d) Are the results, if any, described and evaluated thoroughly?
e) Are the scientific arguments sustained in a logical way ?

Relevance*:
a) Is the paper closely related to the theme of the journal (broadly conceived)?
b) Is the content interesting enough to a broad audience?
c) Is the paper readable in a multi-disciplinary context?
d) Does the article represent a contribution to the development of theory?
 
Explanations and comment (optional) .......
 
Decision* 
 [ ] Accept as is
 [ ] Accept with minor revisions (please explain .....*)
 [ ] Accept with major revisions / re-review (please explain .....*)
 [ ] Reject but encourage re-submission after the work is more developed (please explain .....*)
 [ ] Reject (please explain .....*)
 
* Denotes required field
 
The final result of the peer review process will be send to the author by the Editorial Board. This process normally takes no more 20 days.
           
B. Conference proceedings

The conference proceedings will be published in AUB-SAS only if the organizing committee proves that it can provide its own evaluation standard for papers which must be compatible with our double-blind peer review process and our Author Guidelines. In this case, the responsibility for the peer review process belongs to the conference organizing committee; our the Executive Editorial Board just will verify if paper is drafted according to Author Guidelines and if it falls within one of the areas of interest covered by the journal.