Norme de redactare
Toate articolele și recenziile vor fi adresate Redacției în dublu format, word și PDF, la adresa: email@example.com. În cazul utilizării de ilustrații sau a unor fonturi speciale, acestea vor fi trimise Redacției în același timp cu articolul respectiv, însoțite, în cazul ilustrațiilor, de o legendă. Fiecare articol va fi însoțit de un rezumat în limba engleză de 6-8 rânduri, precum și de cuvinte-cheie (între 3 și 5) în limba engleză. Autorii vor indica, de asemenea, afilierea lor profesională.
Normele de redactare a articolelor sunt cele utilizate de Editura Academiei Române.
For all parties involved in the act of publishing it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected editorial ethics. The ethics statements for the Revue des études sud-est européennes are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of the Director and of the Editor-in-Chief
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Director, the Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Duties of peer-reviewers
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Director and by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Duties of authors
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Director or Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.