TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EDITING ARTICLES
The review of the materials submitted for publication goes through several stages, with the aim of selecting the most valuable works, thus ensuring the quality of the published material.
At the first stage, the scientific or synthesis article, received at the editorial office by the editor-in-chief for publication, passes the “Plagiarism detection software” test.
The primary evaluation is carried out by editor-in-chief or the scientific editor and draws attention to the main components for a scientific article, if the name is reflected in the content of the article, if the abstract reflects the content, the keywords correspond to the content, if the literature analysis, the description of own research, the experiment carried out is correctly reported, the conclusions are drawn, the bibliography is written according to ANACEC requirements. Attention is paid to the originality and topicality of the results presented, they are sufficiently new and interesting to justify publication; if the research is of interest to scientists as well as practitioners. The article is rejected if it does not meet the general requirements, submitted for scientific articles.
At the second stage, after finding that the article corresponds to the requirements of scientific articles, the editor-in-chief, proposes the article for review to two people with a scientific title, selected by the Scientific Council of the journal, competent in the given field. When analyzing the content of the article by the reviewer, each element is taken into account, checking whether: the title fully reflects the content of the article; if the summary clearly reflects the content of the article; keywords express content landmarks; the introduction is concise and describes the state of affairs, the importance of the study; how well the addressed problem is known in the specialized literature, with what new data the current research complements the addressed problem. The actual content of the paper supports arguments, the need for research, emerging from the analysis of the literature in the field, the correctness of the figures, tables, the results of the research are explained and if they are presented clearly and in a logical sequence.
At the third stage, after the peer-review evaluation by two experts in the field, the material and references received from the referents are presented for verification to the scientific editor and the editorial board, who make recommendations for the final decision. The author will be notified by the editor-in-chief if the article meets the requirements and will be edited or needs to be revised. In case of both negative reviews – the article is rejected.
Materials are not returned to the author.
The editor-in-chief notifies the author about the decision to publish or the need to redo/complete the article.
All submitted materials are tested in the free plagiarism checker http://www.detectareplagiat.ro
DISCLAIMER
To prevent plagiarism and other intellectual theft, the author submits a self-responsible declaration according to the model
STATEMENT
of assuming responsibility Undersigned) _____________________________________________
(surname, surname, function, scientific or teaching degree)
I hereby declare on my own responsibility, being aware of the legal implications of my authorship, that the entire content of my work ____________________________________________________________________________ (name, volume in A4 pages)
presented Psihologie scientific-practical magazine, ISSN 1857-2502 belongs to me and has not been published elsewhere. I also mention that I have always indicated the bibliographic sources and have not reproduced (plagiarized), partially or in whole, materials of other authors or unauthorized sources.
I am aware that, in the case of proof of falsity in the statements, to bear the consequences provided by the legislation in force.
This Declaration is signed in two copies, one copy for each party, having the same legal force.
We invite you to a fruitful collaboration!
Sincerely, the editorial board.
The article is evaluated according to the following model:
THE SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL OF THE PERIODICAL PUBLICATION
PSYCHOLOGY, SCIENTIFIC-PRACTICAL JURNAL
ISSN 1857-2502, E-ISSN 2537-6276
******************************************************************************************
EVALUATION SHEET
of the scientific article ______________________________________________
| Nr. | The section | The elements of the scientific article | Answers, comments | |
| 1. | The title and summary of the article | Does the title adequately correspond to the content of the article? | ||
| Are there discrepancies between the summary and the rest of the article? | ||||
| Can the essence be understood from the summary without reading the article? | ||||
| 2. | Introduction | Is the introduction concise? | ||
| Is the purpose of the study clearly defined? | ||||
| Is there a reasoned analysis of the literature on which the study is based? | ||||
| Are the terms used in the article defined? | ||||
| Is the research hypothesis clearly established? | ||||
| 3. |
The methodology |
Could another researcher replicate the study using the author’s methods, or are the methods unclear? | ||
| Are the research tools correctly selected (analytical tools, statistical methods, etc.)? | ||||
| Were congruent methods used to test the hypothesis? | ||||
| 4. | Rezults | Are the results of the research presented clearly? | ||
| Is the order of presentation of the results consecutive? | ||||
| Are the results reasonable and expected or are they unexpected? | ||||
| Are the research findings explained clearly enough? | ||||
| 5. | Commenting on the results | Is the comment on the results concise? | ||
| Have the authors determined whether the hypothesis or scientific questions have been verified/answered? | ||||
| Are the authors’ conclusions justified by the results presented in the study? | ||||
| In the case of unexpected results, are they adequately commented by the researchers? | ||||
| Are the limits of the study indicated? | ||||
| 6. | Graphic presentation | Are the figures and tables used appropriately? or are additional graphics required? | ||
| Do the figures and tables adequately present the important results? | ||||
| Do the captions provide a clear explanation for understanding the figures, without the need to consult the rest of the article? | ||||
| 7. | Bibliographical references | Are bibliographic references appropriate to the study presented? | ||
| Bibliographic references are cited according to the International Standard ISO 690:2012 | ||||
| Are there errors in the reference list? Were the references properly cited? Are there citations in the text without indicating the sources? | ||||
| Are there more important bibliographic sources on the researched subject that were not indicated in the references? | ||||
| Editor’s recommendations | received | Returned to be completed/rejected | ||
| Author’s recommendations (changes/additions; methodical; literature etc.) | ||||
Reviewer: N.P, affiliation ____________________________________________________
Synthesis articles require mandatory: Purpose, writing the bibliography according to the APA criteria