Academicus International Scientific Journal

Peer Review ProcessThe author is required to submit articles by uploading them to the journal website according to the specified procedure as in Authors Submission category. In order to protect specific characteristics, present in the article, or in case of failure of the above-mentioned upload, the author can send the proposal to the editorial e-mail address info@academicus.edu.al, which confirms receipt through an email within five calendar days. Otherwise the author should re-send the article. The submission and processing of articles is free of charge. Once uploaded or emailed, the automatic system sends an email to the author confirming the reception and a copy of this is automatically forwarded to the Editorial Secretariat to check the conformity of the article with the field covered by the journal and all required formal components of the article. In case of conformity, the proposal is revised by the language editor and then to the Editorial Secretariat who makes the adaption for the double-blind peer review. The author receives a message from the automatic system, confirming that the proposal has been uploaded into the system for the double-blind peer review.Academicus ISJ operates with a double-blind peer-review standard, where the reviewer selection is done by an automated system, patented with trademark, as follows: Based on the UDC code declared by the author, the Editorial Secretariat inserts the paper into one of the corresponding folders of each field, without names and other sensitive data of the author. By using their personal login (user, pass), reviewers, after receiving a message generated by the system, which informs them that in the folder of the scientific field covered by them there is a new proposal for review, message which goes to all reviewers of that field, enter in the directories of their scientific field where they may download the paper and express their availability to review the paper by checking the corresponding box. Only the two reviewers who express first their disposability, among five per each field, gain the right to make the review of a proposal. After two reviewers express their disposability (availability check), the work is not available for review by other reviewers, and within 3 weeks they must stipulate their decision, in English language, and communicate it to us with by the evaluation form, according to our standard described at the Journal’s Regulations directory. In case there is no convergence of reviews for a proposal, the Editorial Secretariat makes it available to a third reviewer, following the same procedure, while the three remaining reviewers are informed by a message generated by the system.The Editorial Board selects a group of reviewers for each research field covered by the journal. Reviewers are selected from academic and scientific environments experts of the field and have an outstanding scientific reputation. Their reviews and assessments assure the highest quality of the journal in terms of scientific content and publishing standard. The reviewer receives the article “in blind” from the journal’s database which lists the proposals according to the scientific fields he/she covers and has a reviewing limit of two articles per issue. Each proposal is available to two reviewers who stipulate concerning the availability for publishing of a proposal, within a time span of 3 weeks. The reviewers, by an individual login at the Reviewers space, part of Academicus Electronic Management System, elaborate an overall assessment of the article in an Evaluation Form, focusing on its originality and contribution, and specify its quality in terms of both its scientific and practical value. All comments must be sufficiently justified and the assessment conclusion must be clear and unambiguous. In the assessment, the reviewer must state whether he/she: Recommends the article for publication. Recommends the article for publication after taking due regard to comments (minor revisions). Recommend the article for publication after eliminating formal deficiencies (major revisions). Does not recommend the article for publication, but author(s) should be encouraged to resubmit in the future, after re-elaborating the paper, referring the reviewers comments. Does not recommend the article for publication. The conclusions of a reviewer’s assessment are considered as recommendations.The Editorial Secretariat communicates by email the results of the peer review process. Based on the observations and recommendations, the author shall modify the article submitted. A modified final copy is to be returned to the editor’s address: info@academicus.edu.al following up the above-mentioned procedure and taking into consideration deadlines that the editor sets. Articles not accepted for publication shall be returned to the author via the Editorial Secretariat, together with the reason for not publishing, signed by the Editor in Chief, by bringing back the parts at their initial state, with no any obligation between them. As explained previously in the peer review procedure, in case one of the reviewer asked for modifications and corrections by the author, the modified work received with procedure explained at Authors chapter at the Journal Regulations, is sent also to the other reviewer, who made one of the review of the initial proposal, independently from his/her evaluation, in order to reach on an agreement on the publication.The Editorial Board selects the reviewers for each research field covered by the journal, based on the UDC classification. Reviewers are grouped according to the scientific fields covered by the journal. The Editorial Board evaluates the performance of the reviewers on a one-year frequency and each 2 years renews the least performing reviewer of the list of the field, with candidates who self-apply for the role based on the Call for Reviewers of the Editorial Board, based on a pointed evaluation of their CVs.The Editorial Board, which has the ultimate right to decide upon the Table of Content of each issue, decides upon according to the Publication Ethics follows guidance from COPE to support the ethical publishing principles and malpractice statements. The Editor in Chief communicates to the Editorial Secretariat the composition of an issue, by maintaining an equilibrated representation of the fields, considering the fact that Academicus Journal is also published in hard copy and the reader who asks for them, reads it as a book.