Peer Review Process

Technium Romanian Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology (ISSN: 2668-778X) conducts double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts are initially examined by the editorial staff. If the manuscript meets the author’s guidelines, the Editor in Chief is responsible for finding appropriate reviewers for a manuscript. For each paper that the Editor-in-Chief assigns, the transactions assistant will send the editor a letter requesting that he/she handle the review process of the paper. Editors should assign at least two independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief ensures sending the manuscripts to reviewers without any authors’ identification, including authors’ names and affiliations. The reviewers should not identify themselves or their organizations within the review text. Review file will be watermarked “Review only. Do not distribute!”

The invitation to review a manuscript is send by an e-mail. The reviewers must be specialists in the field.

After acceptance, the reviewers should complete the review by the specified due date. The reviewers are kindly asked to contact us if they need to extend the deadline. If the reviewers have differing opinions, then the text is sent to a third reviewer.

The Editor-in-Chief will take a decision on the disposition of the manuscript, based on remarks of the reviewers. The editor's recommendation must be well justified and explained in detail. In cases where the revision is requested, these should be clearly indicated and explained. The editor must then promptly convey this decision to the author. The author may contact the editor if instructions regarding amendments to the manuscript are unclear. The guidelines of decisions for publication are as follows:

Accept: An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper with no further modifications. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers.

Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in “Journal Name”.

Revision: The paper is conditionally accepted with some requirements. A revision means that the paper should go back to the original reviewers for a second round of reviews.  Authors must provide more details about how the reviewer comments were addressed.

How this manuscript advances this field of research and/or contributes something new to the literature?

Relevance of this manuscript to the readers of “Journal Name”.

Is the paper clearly written and well organized? Are all figures and tables appropriately provided and are their resolution good quality?

Does the introduction state the objectives of the manuscript encouraging the reader to read on?

Are the references relevant and complete? Supply missing references. Please supply any information that you think will be useful to the author in revision for enhancing quality of the paper or for convincing him/her of the mistakes. The manuscripts are accepted only after receiving two positive reviews from the anonymous reviewers.