THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The peer review process of the scientific journal Acta Musei Napocensis. I. Prehistory - Ancient History - Archaeology follows the international standards of evaluation. This is a double blind peer review, which means that the author’s name is unknown to the reviewers and viceversa. The most important steps are described below:

1. Submission of paper
The paper is submitted to the journal by email (amn@mnit.ro).

2. Editorial Board assessment
The Editorial Board checks the paper to ensure that the author has complied with the editorial requirements. It also determines whether the article is of interest to the journal. If not, this can be rejected without being sent to a reviewer.

3. The reviewers
The editors choose two reviewers for each article, depending on their concerns, which must be consistent with the topic of the article. They are invited to evaluate the material. In case they refuse, another reviewer is invited. Reviewers are researchers in the field and review the article independently of the author; they work at different universities and institutes from Romania or abroad.

The reviewer will read the article and will use the comments system to suggest changes if necessary, then his suggestions are sent to the author. If the article is not corrected in accordance with the reviewer’s requirements, it can be rejected.

The editors will take into consideration the two reviews of the article. If they differ too much, an additional review will be requested.

4. The decision
The final decision of publishing the article is taken by the Editorial Board and it is communicated to the author.

EVALUATION FORM
Acta Musei Napocensis. I. Prehistory - Ancient History - Archaeology

Reviewer:

Title of article:

Please review the article in the following terms:

1. A written evaluation - remarks and comments (1-3 pages)

2. A review based on the form below

1. The title is relevant and reflects the subject of the paper
2. The abstract reflects the content of the article
3. The introduction presents the relevance of the study in the field and cites the results obtained by other authors in that field
4. The work corresponds to the chosen field, being scientifically relevant
5. The article is consistent, the way the topic is approached is correct
6. The conclusions present a relevant synthesis of the research results
7. The bibliographic sources are recent, complete
8. The paper uses an appropriate academic language

3. Scores are given between 0 and 10 for each of the criteria

4. Proposal:
· unconditional admission of the article;
· admission of the article if changes mentioned in the review are done;
· rejection of the article.

 Signature