ANALELE UNIVERSITĂŢII DIN ORADEA FASCICULA LIMBA ŞI
LITERATURA ROMÂNĂ
ISSN 1224-7588
”Analele Universităţii din Oradea. Seria Filologie. Fascicula Limba și Literatura Română”
is the same journal with ”Analele Universităţii din Oradea Fascicula Limba și Literatura
Română”. Initially Seria Filologie referred to the two fascicules in the series, now there is
only one fascicule in Seria Filologie. Alternative title in English: ”Annals of The University of
Oradea Romanian Language and Literature Fascicule”
Peer-review policy
ALLRO advocates the open peer-review systems. It means that the sender of
the manuscript appears with her/his name when the manuscript is sent by the
reviews editor to the peer-reviewers.
We have weighed up the pros and cons of masked author identity in the first
stage versus open identity of manuscript sender throughout both stages of
publishing. We totally agree with the masked review policy as a necessary tool
for the warranty of objective, unbiased evaluations. However, guided by the
purpose of our journal above all, we have resorted to the open, unmasked
review. The authors must assume their ideas and be able to defend them against
critical evaluations. It is more challenging for the authors to appear with their
names from the beginning. This way the journal aims to retain some of the
benefits of the writer-reader relationship. Even a text of criticism and/or a
research article, even a book review is a form of creation. The peer-reviewer
enters a genuine dialogue with the text. The sent manuscript always becomes
enriched by being read, assessed and by having this dialogue with a professional
reader. On the other hand, unsure senders of poor manuscripts are urged to be
more rigorous, since they are more exposed this way, with their names written
on the papers.
Author-reviewer mediation
The editor-in-chief, the associate editor-in-chief and the editorial secretary
can never perform the job of peer-reviewing for ALLRO, as long as they are in
these positions. The section-editors are not allowed to do the peer-reviewing job
for ALLRO. The reviews editors have the mission to facilitate the circulation of
manuscripts from the authors to the peer-reviewers. The reviews editors are not
peer-reviewing for ALLRO. The editor-in-chief, the associate editor-in-chief and
the editorial secretary can start their job after they have the results of peer-
reviewing for articles, never before the articles are assessed.
The author–peer-reviewer mediation is not a 'blind' one. The parity (author
knowing her/his peer-reviewers) is achieved by our publishing of the complete
list of reviewers. We, ALLRO executive editors, cannot assume to mediate this
parity. Some authors have difficulties in accepting criticism. They should know
that it is a personal attitude and this choice cannot call into question the good
intentions of the peer-reviewers. In an ideal world, we would be the mediators of
a complete parity, for the sake of dialogue, after the publication of the journal.
Print stages and peer-review procedure:
The preparation of the new issue of ALLRO has two stages: the preparation of
2
the draft issue and the turning of the draft issue into the finite print work.
The coordination role for the first stage belongs to the reviews editors. They
elaborate and follow the chart of distributing the manuscripts to the peer-
reviewers. Each manuscript has two peer-reviewers assigned. There are
situations when a third peer-reviewer with competences in the language of the
manuscript is required.
The peer-reviewers send to the reviews editors the filled-in form with their
evaluation concerning the publication, their comments and suggestions for
correction, their indications about the parts that need revision. The reviews
editors pass on the indications for revisions, the corrections and suggestions to
the manuscript sender. The reviews editors keep all the forms filled-in by the
peer-reviewers in a special file, in print form. While the authors are expected to
improve their manuscripts with the suggested corrections, the reviews editors,
together with the section editors, prepare a draft of the new issue of the journal
with the manuscripts accepted for publication by the peer-reviewers. The
reviews editors manage all the necessary steps of the first stage. They are helped
by the section-editors with the draft issue. When the authors return their
manuscripts with the included corrections, the reviews editors check the overall
congruency of the revisions with the indications or comments of the forms filled-
in by the peer-reviewers. They decide if the manuscript should be sent again to
the peer-reviewers for a second evaluation. In cases of major revisions, the
improved manuscript is definitely sent for a second time to the peer-reviewers.
For the second stage, that of turning the draft into a printed journal, the
managing role is that of the editor-in-chief, who, assisted by the associate editor-
in-chief, will ensure the correct distribution of roles among the editorial team
and will ensure the clarity of the contents. The editor-in-chief manages all
practical and literary aspects of ALLRO. The collaboration with the advisory
board, the print supervision, and the distribution of the journal are achieved by
the editor-in-chief.
The unification of the first stage with the second stage is the key-task of the
editorial secretary. His tasks are both of a practical and critical evaluative nature.
He has the freedom to decide on any necessary extra-steps or extra-measures in
order to ensure the best synchronization between the two stages. The editorial
secretary is also the main layout editor.
When the draft of the new issue is handed in to the editorial secretary, who is
in charge of turning it into the finite work of print, he makes a careful scheduling
of re-collecting the improved manuscripts. The editorial secretary makes up the
table of contents and, after meetings with the editor-in-chief, decides on the
sections of the new issue.
The final decision of the selection or rejection of a manuscript is taken by the
editor-in-chief, together with the editorial secretary and the associate editor-in-
chief. They carefully analyze the file with the responses of the peer-reviewers.
The two peer-reviewers of each manuscript have already expressed their
opinions: “pro” or “against” publication (Yes/No on the final question of the
peer-review form. See our peer-review form here:
http://analeromana.uoradea.ro/model_bun_pr.pdf The peer-review form can be
available in just one language, at request, for simplification. The peer-reviewer is
allowed to use his/her free style. The peer-reviewers are free to use this form
and they are free, as well, to simply write notes, observations on submitted
3
manuscripts regardless of our peer-review form. Feedback in the form of written
notes, free structure, is fully accepted. The peer-reviewer must give their Yes/No
for publication, with minor or major changes, but with a definite verdict on
"publishable or not publishable" ). The three mentioned executive editors also
express an opinion after re-evaluating the manuscript, either “pro” or “against”
publication. The management never starts this procedure before peer-reviewing,
only after. The majority ( ≥3 of the 5 opinions)wins. The author is informed by
one of the reviews editors. If the topic of the manuscript is not covered by
ALLRO, the reviews editors inform the author directly without sending the
manuscript to the peer-reviewers.
The section editors help the reviews editors for the completion of the first
stage. For the second stage, they are assigned new tasks by the editor-in-chief
and by the editorial secretary.
As stated in our ethical code
http://analeromana.uoradea.ro/ethical%20code%20for%20publishing.pdf
let us suppose the principles of the peer-reviewer and the general principles
of our journal are not the same. Whose should be the guiding principle? The
peer-reviewer must respect the fact that our peer-review process is single-blind.
Other than that, the peer-reviewer must have the freedom to respect his/her
own principles while assessing the manuscript, rather than respecting the
journal's principles. For example the journal might have the principle of
encouraging growth and potential, the peer-reviewer might have other
principles. The journal should guarantee the peer-reviewer the necessary trust
without imposing the journal's principles.
About peer-reviewers
Our journal has a clear policy of selecting the peer-reviewers on the basis of
their proven affinities and activities. We are familiar with the books and articles
published by our peer-reviewers and with their domains of interest. We have
contacted in person all the peer-reviewers of our journal. We have not resorted
yet to the practice of peer-reviewers selected on a basis of an application form
(but a future expansion of our journal may bring the adoption of this practice).
Who are our peer-reviewers? First of all, intellectuals with an authentic
passion for reading and for culture, proven by their activities and achievements.
They are our colleagues (peers) from other Romanian universities and from
abroad institutes and universities. Or they work in institutions of culture and
education or in the cultural press. If the one of the peer-reviewers has excellent
competences in Romanian literature and can give valuable comments on the
contents of the manuscript but s/he declines to assess the article from the point
of view of linguistic corrections, spelling, focusing mainly on the literary
evaluation, then a third peer-reviewer is assigned to that manuscript with a
specific task of language corrections. The peer-reviewers may use English,
Romanian or the language of the manuscript. They must be fluent in the language
of the manuscript they evaluate.
4
In case of simultaneous unavailability of some of the peer-reviewers, the
reviews editors address the editor-in-chief to supplement the list of peer-
reviewers.
We rely on the discernment of our peer-reviewers and we are thankful for
their confirmed good intentions.
The peer-reviewers are the people who provide vital help with the quality
assurance of our journal. We can say that they provide "the quality control"
necessary for ALLRO's publication and progress.
