» WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE A PEER-REVIEWER?
If YES, than REGISTER HERE! Please check the reviewer check box and write reviewing interests (substantive areas and research methods): 5-6 keywords.
Note: Please read the tutorial below before starting registration process.
» ALREADY A PEER-REVIEWER? - LOG IN PROCESS
If YES, than LogIn.
Note: Please read the tutorial below before starting registration process.
The Reviewer is selected by the Section Editor to review a submission. Reviewers are asked to submit reviews to the
journal's web site (although some journals opt for an email review policy) and are able to upload attachments for the
use of the Editor and Author. Reviewers may be rated by Section Editors.
The Reviewer is invited by email to review a submission, which includes its title and abstract, as well as the
journal's URL and a username and password for the Reviewer to use to enter the journal. The journal has the option
of using a reviewer option that sends the submission as an email attachment to the Reviewer along with an invitation
to review. In this case, the Reviewer then responds by email. What is described here is the principal method for
reviewing (and ensuring complete records of the process), which involves the Reviewer conducting the Review on
the journal's web site.
SUBMISSIONS On logging in to the journal, the Reviewer arrives at the User Home page. By clicking on the role of Reviewer (as a Reviewer may be enrolled under other roles, such as an Author), the Reviewer is led to the Submissions page. This page lists the submissions which the Reviewer has been invited to review or is currently in the process of reviewing. The Submissions queue also notes what round the review is, as some reviews may have entered a second round of reviewing, following the Section Editor's decision that the submission must be "resubmitted for review." This page also provides access to past reviews which the Reviewer has completed for the journal.
The Reviewer is invited by email to review a submission, which includes its title and abstract, as well as the journal's URL and a username and password for the Reviewer touse to enter the journal. The journal has the option of using a reviewer option that sends the submission as an email attachment to the Reviewer along with an invitation to review. In this case, the Reviewer then responds by email . What is described here is the principal method for reviewing (and ensuring complete records of the process), which involves the Reviewer conducting the Review on the journal's web site.
REVIEW HOME PAGE
Please use the buttons to resize the text in order to fulfill your requirements. It might be seen in the upper left corner of all pages.
1.SUBMISSIONS On logging into the journal, you will arrive at the User Home page. To see the submissions you need to review, click the Reviewer link, or click the "x" Active link. Both will take you to your active Submissions page. This page lists the submissions which you have been invited to review or are currently in the process of reviewing. The Submissions queue also notes what round the review is, as some reviews may have entered a second round of reviewing, following the Section Editor's decision that the submission must be "resubmitted for review." This page also provides access to past reviews which the Reviewer has completed for the journal. Clicking on the linked title will take you to the review process.
2.REVIEW You will first see a summary of the submission details. Next, you will see the review schedule, and the associated deadline. Next, the Review process is divided into six steps:
Reviewer has first to indicate to the Section Editor whether they will undertake the review. The decision should be made after reviewing the submission's Abstract and perhaps looking at the submission, by clicking on the file name in Step 3. If unable to do the review. The Reviewer who is unable to do the review clicks on "Unable to do the review" which leads to a standard email to the Section Editor, which the Reviewer can revise to indicate, if they wish, why they are cannot do the review (e.g., timing, conflict of interest, lack of expertise, etc.). If able to do the review. The Reviewer who is able to do the review clicks on "Will do there view," which leads to a standard email to the Section Editor, and which will indicate to Section Editor and Author that the review is underway.
Consult the Reviewer Guidelines, found at the bottom of the Review page. The Reviewer Guidelines have been prepared by the Editors of the journal to ensure that your review is as helpful as possible to them and the author.
The Author has uploaded the submission as a file, which the Reviewer can download from the journal's web site to the Reviewer's computer by clicking on the file name. The file can be opened or saved to the computer and opened, using available programs such as Word or Acrobat. It can be printed out or read on the screen. The Supplementary Files refer to materials the Author may have uploaded in addition to the submission, such as data sets, research instruments, or source texts.
The journal requires the Reviewer to declare whether or not they have competing interests with the article being reviewed. If this is the case, Step 4 becomes a form requesting a declaration of Competing Interests, and all following steps change their step number accordingly. The Reviewer clicks on the Review icon and is presented with two Review text - boxes where the Review can be either entered by hand or pasted: one for the Editor and Author, and one visible to the Edit or only. The Reviewer may return to make such changes until a recommendation on the main Review pages is chosen, at which time the Review process is complete. The Reviewer has to fill an extended custom review form available on the journal site . The form can be returned to and edited until a recommendation has been chosen.
The Reviewer also has the option, in addition to entering a Review, of uploading files for the Section Editor and/or the Author to see. These files may be a Reviewer-annotated version of the submission or some relevant data or other materials that will assist Editor and/or Author. It will be at the Editor's discretion whether these files are shown to the Author, but Reviewers can certainly comment on this in the Review (Step 4).
The Reviewer must select a Recommendation for the submission from among the following options: Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, See Comments. When the Reviewer clicks "Submit Review to the Editor," it leads to a prepared email to the Section Editor, as well as making visible to the Editor the Recommendation, the saved Review (which are now locked) and any uploaded files. The email can be edited by the Reviewer before sending.
Please see the entire tutorial at: http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs/docs/userguide/2.3.3/userguide.pdf
» POLICY FOR CONCURRENT/MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS
Manuscripts submitted to Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series should not be currently published or being considered for publication at another scientific journal or similar outlet. Likewise, does not accept multiple submissions of essentially the same work. That is, every submitted article should be substantially original in content, relative to other works currently published or under review. Manuscripts that violate these requirements will be automatically rejected, and the author of the respective manuscript may be excluded from future submissions to this journal. Moreover, a manuscript may be rejected at any time, upon discovery that it does not comply with the policy stipulated herein, even if the author had previously been notified of the manuscript s acceptance .
» PREVIEW PROCESS - BLIND REVIEW
All manuscripts received by Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series undergo the following review process. Upon receipt, each manuscript is assigned a content editor who is responsible with its evaluation.
The evaluation proceeds with the following major steps:
1. The content editor examines the manuscript and decides whether to proceed with a blind peer review. The manuscript may be rejected without a peer review if the content editor establishes that it does not conform to the basic requirements of Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series editorial policy, including authenticity, originality, formatting, submission guidelines, etc. Likewise, a content editor may reject the manuscript if he/she believes that the content of the manuscript is not appropriate for the topics and interests of Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, or if it is established that the manuscript clearly lacks in scientific quality to the extent that the probability of it being accepted through the blind peer review would be too low to justify the waiting time for the author.
2. If the manuscript is rejected at the initial review, the content editor notifies the author of this decision. Otherwise, the content editor forwards the manuscript (with the authors name removed) to two peer reviews for evaluation and notifies the author that the manuscript has been accepted for a blind peer review.
3. Each peer reviewer evaluates the manuscript and submits to the content editor a referee report along with one of the following recommendations:
- Accept submission - publishable without revisions
- Revisions required - conditionally publishable with minor revisions
- Resubmit for review- potentially publishable with major revisions (revise and resubmit)
- Decline submission - not publishable
- Resubmit elsewhere - not publishable
- See comments
4. The content editor weighs the recommendations of the two peer reviewers and takes a decision on whether to accept the manuscript for publication as is, reject the manuscript without further review, or proceed with soliciting the revisions recommended by the referees. The content editor communicates the decision along with the referee reports (with the reviewers name removed), and if applicable conditions for revisions, to the author.
5. If it is decided that the manuscript requires revision, the author makes such revisions in accordance with the conditions/recommendations of the content editor and referees, and upon completion, resubmits the manuscript directly the content editor. Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the content editor may decide to approve it for publication automatically or resubmit it the peer reviewers for reevaluation. In addition to the two original peer reviewers, the content editor may also solicit the opinion of an additional (third) reviewer.
6. Once the manuscript is deemed publishable in its current form, the author is notified of the decision and is provided with a copy of the manuscript in its final publishable form, for approval. Aside from the final approval, the author is required to transfer the copyright to the manuscript to Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series, before the manuscript can be published.
We provide a Single Blind Review. Please fill in our registration form, use the article template and then upload your paper without authors'names.