ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ORADEA
FASCICLE OF TEXTILES, LEATHERWORK

 
HOME

EDITORIAL PROCEDURE

Peer Review Process and Acceptance/Rejection Criteria
The authors are kindly requested to prepare and submit their manuscripts in accordance with

Instructions for Authors. Manuscripts may be submitted through the online submission system or by e-mail.

Peer Review Policy
The Annals of the University of Oradea. Fascicle of Textiles, Leatherwork applies a double-blind peer review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. The journal is committed to ensuring an objective, impartial and confidential evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening performed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Section Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for compliance with the journal's editorial requirements before being sent for external peer review.
The editorial office verifies that:

• the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
• the manuscript complies with the Instructions for Authors;
• all required submission documents, including the signed Authorship Statement, have been provided;
• references and citations are correctly formatted;
• the English language is of sufficient quality for scientific evaluation;
• figures, tables and supplementary materials are complete and of adequate quality.

In addition, all submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and publication ethics using appropriate similarity detection methods before entering the peer review process.
Incomplete submissions or manuscripts that do not satisfy these preliminary requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review (administrative rejection).
The preliminary editorial assessment usually requires 1–2 weeks.

Acceptance and Rejection Criteria
Manuscripts are considered for publication if they:

• fall within the aims and scope of the journal;
• present original and unpublished research that is not under consideration elsewhere;
• demonstrate scientific novelty and make a meaningful contribution to the field;
• employ scientifically sound methodology and appropriate research design;
• present results supported by adequate data and valid analysis;
• comply with publication ethics, including originality, proper citation practices and disclosure of conflicts of interest;
• meet the journal's editorial and formatting requirements.

Manuscripts may be rejected if they:

• fall outside the journal's scope;
• contain plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data;
• have been previously published or are simultaneously submitted to another journal;
• present serious methodological weaknesses or unsupported conclusions;
• lack scientific originality or significant contribution to the field;
• fail to comply with ethical standards or editorial requirements;
• fail to adequately address reviewers' or editors' comments after revision.

External Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary assessment are sent to experts for scientific evaluation. Reviewers assess the originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, significance of the research, clarity of presentation and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.
The purpose of peer review is to provide an objective scientific evaluation and constructive recommendations that help improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers submit their recommendations through the journal's standardized Review Form.
Authors are generally informed of the reviewers' decisions within approximately one month after submission.

Revision Process
When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

• a revised version of the manuscript;
• a detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment individually.

Authors should clearly indicate every modification made in the revised manuscript. Changes should be identified by page and paragraph number or highlighted using track changes or colored text.
Failure to submit satisfactory revisions within the requested timeframe may result in rejection of the manuscript.

Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept – the manuscript is accepted for publication without further modifications.
• Minor Revision – the manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions.
• Major Revision – the manuscript requires substantial revisions and will be reconsidered after resubmission.
• Reject – the manuscript does not meet the journal's standards regarding originality, scientific quality, methodological soundness, relevance to the journal's scope or ethical requirements.

When reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may:

• consult additional independent reviewers;
• discuss the reviews with the reviewers when appropriate;
• evaluate all reports and make the final editorial decision.

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial policies.

Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a scientific misunderstanding or procedural error has occurred during the review process. Appeals should be submitted in writing with detailed justification. The editorial board will evaluate the appeal and communicate its final decision.

Final Acceptance
The peer review process is considered complete when the Editor-in-Chief formally accepts the manuscript for publication and the corresponding author has submitted all required publication documents, including the Copyright Transfer Agreement, where applicable.