Peer Review Process:
Authors submit manuscripts for publication consideration via email address email@example.com, or to the editor-in-chief firstname.lastname@example.org. All submissions should be prepared for blind reviewing: authors should remove all information that could reveal their identity and provide their name and contact information on a separate page. Journal staff assigns new submissions to a primary editor based on the article type; however, editors occasionally transfer responsibility for a manuscript to one another.
First all submissions go through an internal peer review process, and most go through an external peer review process.
Internal Peer Review Process
First each submission is reviewed by the assigned editor who makes an initial decision to send the manuscript out for peer review or to reject without external review. Articles can be rejected at this stage for a variety of reasons such as little new information is provided, the topic is outside of the scope of the Journal, important flaws in the scientific validity, or an unprofessional presentation.
If that submission meets the requirements of the internal editorial peer review, it is then sent out for external peer review (only the book-reviews are published without external peer review).
External Peer Review Process
The articles send to the external peer review get into a blind peer-review evaluation system, each of them being assessed by one or two anonymous reviewers.
The editor identifies potential reviewers seeking a balance of perspectives. Several approaches may be used to find reviewers. The Advisory board is frequently consulted. The reviewers can be searched by name or by area of expertise. The Anastasis Journal database contains information on reviewing history, including number of current assignments, reviews completed in the past year and other. Beyond the reviewer database of the Journal we go to identify scholars with expertise relevant to a particular manuscript. This can include reading through the article’s bibliography to identify authors who have recently published in a similar area or by conducting a keyword search to identify experts in the field of the submitted paper.
Potential reviewers are contacted about their availability and interest in reviewing. Inquiries to reviewers are sent via E-mail messages or post, which include the manuscript abstract and the assignment deadline. When prospective reviewers agree to serve, they are permitted access to the manuscript and reviewing instructions. Reviewers send their critique back to the editors.
If the decision of reviewers is To be published exactly as it is now, the manuscript is sent to be prepared for editing. The assessment outcome shall be sent to the author of the article. If the decision of reviewers is To be published after it will be transformed according to suggestions or To be published in a modified version, after a new evaluation process, the critique is communicated to the author and then the editors expects recovery manuscript takes into consideration the critiques and recommendations from the peer reviewers. Authors will be notified by email if their text is accepted for publication, recommended for revision, or rejected. The refereeing period is 2 months.
– Respect for the editorial indications of the magazine
– Connection with the concept of the thematic number and the orientations proposed by the coordinators (for the thematic contributions)
– Relevance of the treated topic regarding the research field of the magazine
– Contribution to the national and international reputation of the magazine
– General coherence
– Connection with a scientific literature which is relevant for the topic
– The quality of arguments
– Pertinence of the methodological approach
– Presentation, analysis and pertinence of results
– Accuracy of data or evoked facts
– Bringing updated information and the contribution to the chosen field of knowledge
– Quality of the linguistic form
– Coherence of the structure of the text