Reviewer guidelines JSSP

Reviewer guidelines

Reviewers are some of the most important representatives of a journal. They are the unseen assets of the editorial board of a journal and their work is very important to us. Their work is subsequently reflected in the scientific quality of the manuscripts submitted and accepted for publication. It is important that reviewers are active members of the academic community and have the PhD title.
We invite representatives of the academic field and specialists engaged in research subjects related to the thematic of the journal to become members of our reviewer board.
Please, fill out the official reviewer form which you can download here: Invitation Letter to Review. Please send the official reviewer form, your CV and cover letter in which you describe the motivation for your application to become a reviewer for JSSP at the following address: jssp_ubbcluj@yahoo.com with the subject: Reviewer for the JSSP journal.
Reviewer guidelines revolve around the ethics of publication, scientific exigency and precise specialization in the corresponding scientific field of the journal.

Guidelines and obligations of the Reviewers

Who can be a reviewer? Scholars actively involved in the academic field, who previously published scientific articles, books, members of research groups, and have the PhD title.

Obligations of the reviewers: Reviewers are periodically assigned to review manuscripts and they have to fill out a standard peer-review report to complete the peer-review process in a certain amount of time set together with the editorial team. They need to focus on several essential aspects related to scientific relevance of the subject, content and formatting and give their recommendations to the authors in order to improve quality of the manuscript. Therefore, they must assure of the following:

critical and confidential review;

declare any situation of conflict of interest (please contact the editorial board in due time);

originality of research (new ideas and concepts, clearly and logically approached and debated, connections to other scientific fields);

logical structure of the paper (title, abstract, methodology, results, conclusions);

use of specific language, without errors or subject to wrong interpretation;

check the accuracy of citing and adequacy of references;

objectivity by offering supportive reasons for the eventual adjustments to be made by the authors;

constructive remarks;

promptness of returning back the manuscript and the full reviewer report to the editorial board in due time;

important contribution to the final decision for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript for publication in JSSP.

Reviewers can also reject a manuscript if:

the reviewer does not have the full competence in the subject area of the paper or they consider the subject of the paper irrelevant for the journal;

they are in conflict of interest with the authors or the institution they are affiliated to;

it could bias the review process;

it could put anyone at a disadvantage;

the reviewer does not have the possibility to operate the review in due time.








			Reviewer guidelines Reviewers are some of the most important representatives of a journal. They are the unseen assets of the editorial board of a journal and their work is very important to us. Their work is subsequently reflected in the scientific quality of the manuscripts submitted and accepted for publication. It is important that reviewers are active members of the academic community and have the PhD title. We invite representatives of the academic field and specialists engaged in research subjects related to the thematic of the journal to become members of our reviewer board. Please, fill out the official reviewer form which you can download here: Invitation Letter to Review. Please send the official reviewer form, your CV and cover letter in which you describe the motivation for your application to become a reviewer for JSSP at the following address: jssp_ubbcluj@yahoo.com with the subject: Reviewer for the JSSP journal. Reviewer guidelines revolve around the ethics of publication, scientific exigency and precise specialization in the corresponding scientific field of the journal. Guidelines and obligations of the Reviewers Who can be a reviewer? Scholars actively involved in the academic field, who previously published scientific articles, books, members of research groups, and have the PhD title. Obligations of the reviewers: Reviewers are periodically assigned to review manuscripts and they have to fill out a standard peer-review report to complete the peer-review process in a certain amount of time set together with the editorial team. They need to focus on several essential aspects related to scientific relevance of the subject, content and formatting and give their recommendations to the authors in order to improve quality of the manuscript. Therefore, they must assure of the following: critical and confidential review; declare any situation of conflict of interest (please contact the editorial board in due time); originality of research (new ideas and concepts, clearly and logically approached and debated, connections to other scientific fields); logical structure of the paper (title, abstract, methodology, results, conclusions); use of specific language, without errors or subject to wrong interpretation; check the accuracy of citing and adequacy of references; objectivity by offering supportive reasons for the eventual adjustments to be made by the authors; constructive remarks; promptness of returning back the manuscript and the full reviewer report to the editorial board in due time; important contribution to the final decision for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript for publication in JSSP. Reviewers can also reject a manuscript if: the reviewer does not have the full competence in the subject area of the paper or they consider the subject of the paper irrelevant for the journal; they are in conflict of interest with the authors or the institution they are affiliated to; it could bias the review process; it could put anyone at a disadvantage; the reviewer does not have the possibility to operate the review in due time.