On being asked to review

• Make sure the article you have been asked to review truly matches your expertise
  The Editor who has approached you may not know your work intimately, and may only be aware of your work in a broader context.

• Avoid a potential conflict of interest
  A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision.

• Check that you have enough time
  Reviewing an article can be quite time consuming. The time taken to review can vary greatly between disciplines and of course on article type.

Conducting the Review

• The recommendation - You should choose one of the available options. If you recommend YES - no changes required, the system will accept the paper if there is also another reviewer saying the same. If you recommend YES with minor/major revisions, please expect the author to read and follow your reviewer comments. Then you will be notified when the author fixed his paper (check your message inbox).

• The SAVE button - when you save your review, the system will analyze your recommendation and it will take a decision if there are two reviews.

• You will need to login and fill in all the available fields in this review form, and make a recommendation for the author. After you save your review form, the system will evaluate the existing reviews for the paper and it will take a decision - to accept the paper for publishing if there are two favourable reviews, or to reject the paper, if there are two negative reviews.

• Of course, there is the possibility that a reviewer recommends that the paper should be accepted, but under the condition that author should modify his/her paper. These revisions that you request can by minor revisions or major revisions.

• Comments: The reviewer comments should help the author understand what, why and in which regards the paper should be modified.

• Fixing the paper: After the paper's author modifies his paper, the system will let you know by sending a message. Your review form will be unlocked and you will be able to change your review, based on the paper's revisions made by its author. You will give another recommendation which will make the system decide again.

• If the paper is accepted, the system will notify the author.

• If the author fixed his paper following your recommendations, the system will notify you.

• Logs: All activities on this website are logged and editors are carefully supervising the paper submission process and the peer blind review process.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

At the time of the review of a paper considered for publication in the Journal “The Romanian Economic Journal” ( REJ), reviewers must take into consideration the following ethical standards:
1. Reviewers commit themselves to assist the Editorial Board in the editorial decisions regarding the suitability of a paper for publication in the REJ.
2. Manuscripts will always be evaluated only based on their intellectual merit and contribution to the aims and scope of the REJ, as the reviewers should adhere to standards of fairness, integrity, and objectivity. Kindly note that personal criticism is unacceptable.
3. Reviewers who feel that their review comments might be biased and/or unqualified regarding a particular manuscript submitted for publication to the REJ should notify the REJ Editorial Board immediately and excuse themselves from the review process.
4. Reviewers should be clear in their review comments and provide proper explanations and arguments for their decisions. If suspicion is raised about the originality of the manuscript (unattributed to source), reviewers are expected to notify the Editorial Board immediately, with the appropriate justification.
5. During the review process, reviewers will keep in mind at all times that the manuscript and related materials are confidential.
6. Reviewers warrant that they will not use the manuscripts and related materials submitted for publication in the REJ for any other purpose other than the double-blind peer review process, without the REJ Editorial Board´s and/or author´s permission.