ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ORADEA
FASCICLE OF TEXTILES, LEATHERWORK

line decor
 
 
 
 

 
HOME

EDITORIAL PROCEDURE

The authors are kindly asked to correctly format and submit their manuscripts, according to the formatting instructions. The manuscripts could be submitted online or by e-mail.

The peer-review process of the Journal "Annals of University of Oradea. Fascicle of Textiles, Leatherwork", is performed as single blind, system in which the names of the reviewers are unknown to the authors, but the names of the authors are known to reviewers and editors.


Preliminary evaluation. Received manuscripts are first examined by Editors according to Instructions for authors. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in the advised style will be sent back to author(s) with suggestions for correction. The authors are notified upon manuscript registration at the Editorial Office. The Editor-in-Chief or Section Editor reads every manuscript received and assigns a general priority level: (a) manuscripts sent to reviewers immediately; (b) manuscripts returned to authors with suggestions for the correction of data presentation; and (c) rejected manuscripts. Editors read the revised manuscript. If the manuscript is improved adequately, it is sent to reviewers for review.The preliminary evaluation process usually takes 1-2 weeks.
PLEASE NOTE: papers which do not meet the criteria below will be rejected immediately:
• Ensure that English is of good standard;
• Ensure manuscript conform to the Instructions for authors;
• References, both in-text and reference list, must be formatted according to the Instructions for Authors;
• Include signed Authorship Statement.
An administrative reject refers to a manuscript that does not meet the prescreening measures and is, therefore, returned to the author(s) with explanation

Review process. The registered manuscripts are sent to independent experts for scientific evaluation. One month after submission of the manuscript, the authors will receive the reviews. The comments and suggestions made by the reviewers should be addressed and closely followed.
The purpose of the review is to provide an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript. The review supply authors with feedback on how to improve their manuscript so that it will be acceptable for publication. Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, any remarks that might help to improve the paper should be directed to the authors themselves.

Corrections. Author’s response letter accompanying the revised version of the manuscript. The authors should state clearly and precisely every step taken in accordance with the reviewers’ requests. The description should be listed on a numbered basis, in the order of reviewers’ comments. Altered paragraphs in the new version of the manuscript should be specified using page and paragraph numbers or alternatively marked in red color.

Acceptance. The review process is confidential (double-blind) – the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other. Submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication after a positive opinion of the reviewers. Reviewers are asked to assess reliably the submitted papers in written form using unified ‘Review Form’ (provided by Editorial Office) and include definite conclusion on whether article should be published. There are possible types of decision:

  • Accept without any changes (Acceptance) - the journal will publish the paper in its original form;
  • Accept with minor revisions (conditional acceptance) - the journal will publish the paper and asks the author to make necessary corrections;
  • Reconsider after major revisions (conditional acceptance) - the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors;
  • Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology. The journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions.

If reviewers appear to differ in their opinion, the Editor-in-Chief: (a) may choose to share all reviews with each of the reviewers, or (b) ask other reviewers to assess the manuscript, or (c) consider all comments and balance the final decision. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible.
In the case of rejection, the authors have the right to appeal if they think that the reviewers did not understand or appreciate some points in the manuscript. The editors will then decide if there are grounds for reconsideration of the manuscript.


Common reasons for rejection
The manuscript fails the technical screening: Before manuscripts are sent for review, the editorial office first perform some checks. The main reasons that papers can be rejected at this stage are:

  • The manuscript contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, or it is currently under review at another journal (submitting the same paper to multiple journals at the same time is not allowed).
  • The manuscript is insufficiently well prepared; for example, lacking key elements or submitted as PDF file.
  • The English is not of sufficient quality to allow a useful peer review to take place.
  • The figures or/and tables are not complete or are not clear enough to read.
  • The manuscript does not conform to the most important aspects of the Instruction.
  • The study topic was of little significance - it is archival, or of marginal interest to the field; it is simply a small extension of a different paper, often from the same authors.
  • The paper will be rejected if the language, structure, or figures are so poor that the merit of the paper cannot be assessed.

The peer-review process concludes at the time when the Journal’s Editor- in- Chief decides that the manuscript is accepted for publication and the statement of Copyright Transfer Release has been received from the corresponding author.