INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS

RRSS’s reviewers are expected to write reviews in a timely, collegial, and constructive manner. The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers.
The results have to be synthesized in a review report (the template will be sent by the Editor, along with the paper) which has to be returned within two weeks.
The following notes are only aimed at setting some general guidelines for the review process. Generally, a review should answer the following questions:
•    What are the main objectives of the paper, how significant they are and how they are attained?
•    Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
•    Do the data/contextual analysis support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
•    Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
•    Is the manuscript clearly enough written on matters of organization and content?
•    If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

Take into account that it is impossible to comment on everything. Providing too much feedback can be as much of a problem as not giving enough.  A useful rule of thumb is to use your comments within the text to address “local” issues and reserve the comments at the end for a more “global” summation. Criticism should be presented dispassionately, offensive remarks are not acceptable.

A reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Also, reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript where there are possible conflicts of interest.

If you would like to serve as a reviewer for our journal, please send a CV to the Editor (ianole.rodica@gmail.com), indicating your primary areas of expertise.