Peer Review Process

The review process is an important stage of the publication of a manuscript. It helps the Editorial Board to make a decision on a manuscript and also enables the author(s) to improve the manuscript. Reviewer selection is a compulsory procedure to maintain the high peer review standard of the journal. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection, such as proof of expertise in terms of published papers within the same area in prominent journals, affiliation, reputation, and specific suggestions. The Moldavian Journal of the Physical Sciences tries to avoid reviewers who are laggard, careless, or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative).

The Moldavian Journal of the Physical Sciences follows a single blind peer-review procedure for all submitted manuscripts. Reviewers’ names are not disclosed to the authors of the manuscript; however, their views are forwarded to the authors for consideration. The anonymity of reviewers allows for an objective assessment of the manuscript by reviewers and eliminates a conflict of interest.

1. Research papers submitted to the Editorial Board of the Moldavian Journal of the Physical Sciences published by D.Ghitu Institute of Electronic Engineering and Nanotechnologies are initially put under consideration of the Bureau of the Editorial Board to consider whether a given paper fits into the journal thematic scope; if so, then papers are sent to reviewers (usually, to leading experts in the field) for further approval.
2. The submitted papers should be reviewed by two independent reviewers. The papers should contain original data and have not been submitted for publication to any other journal. The papers published previously, as well those accepted to be published in other journals, will be not be admitted by the Editorial Board; the authors should bear this term in mind.
3. A paper to be published should have a well-reasoned approval of reviewers, which is then considered and further approved by the Bureau of the Editorial Board.
4. If one review is “negative,” a well-reasoned rejection is submitted for consideration to the Bureau of the Editorial Board, which can either approve the rejection or send the paper for another review to another independent reviewer.
5. The vast majority of papers require some degree of modification before publication. If the given paper is of this kind, it is submitted to the author(s) to revise the paper and resubmit it, at the editor’s request, taking into account the reviewer’s recommendations.
6. The revised version is then again forwarded to the reviewer to consider the possibility of publishing the revised paper.
   The final decision about the publication of the revised version of the paper is the prerogative of the Bureau of the Editorial Board.
7. If a paper is rejected, the author(s) receive a well-reasoned explanation from the Editorial Board.

   Confidentiality. Each manuscript received for reviewig should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Reviewers should not contact with the authors directly without the permission of the Editorial Board. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and should not be used for personal benefits.

   Recommendations. Reviewer’s recommendations about the manuscript publication should be as follows:

   • · Is this a new and original contribution? (except for invited reviews)
   • · Is it clearly presented and well organized, and is the English usage satisfactory?
   • · Does it give adequate references to related work?
   • · Does the abstract at the beginning provide an adequate summary of the work performed, the results, and conclusions?
   • · Are only SI units used?
   • · Are the figures satisfactory, with no extraneous information, with symbols and exponents written correctly (no curve in color)?
   • · Are the conclusions sound and justified by the results presented?
   • · Accept without any modifications;
   • · Accept with minor revision (as specified in comments to the author(s);
   • · Accept with major revisions (for the reasons given in comments);
   • · Reject (with well-reasoned argumentation);
   • · No (reject for the reason given in comments). Recommendations should be backed up with solid arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript;

8. The paper approved for publication is further submitted to the proofreader and layout copyeditor.
   Peer Review Form is here
   After that, the author(s) inspects, copyedits, and proofreads it to accept the work done or correct inaccuracies. However, essential modifications by the author(s) after editing and proofreading are not allowed.