Peer Review
Every manuscript sent to the editorial office address is subject to an evaluation of its scientific quality. The peer review process undergoes the following steps:
The papers sent are analysed in the editorial office in order to establish whether they correspond thematically with the journal’s editorial policy and whether they respect the rules presented in the Information for Authors and Ethics and Malpractice.
If the paper respects the basic criteria stated above, it is sent to the peer review experts. The articles undergo a double-blind peer review process, with the identity of the author(s) of the article and of the reviewer(s) not being known by the parties. Only the editor designates the reviewer and knows the identity of the author(s) and the reviewer. In cases where the double-blind system is not possible, the simple-blind peer review system will be used, in which the reviewer knows the author's identity, but the author does not know that of the reviewer. The choice of reviewers aims to avoid conflicts of interest.
The evaluators follow a series of scientific criteria (relevance, originality, structure, coherence, primary and secondary bibliography, quality of the language) and make the necessary recommendations – if the article can be published as a valuable scientific material that is relevant for the topic and research directions of the journal (Accepted in its original form), if there is a need to improve the quality of the material based on the critical opinions of specialists independent of the journal's editorial staff (Accepted with minor changes / Accepted with substantial changes) or if the article is rejected as it is of inferior quality and / or does not correspond to the profile of the journal (Rejected).
The editors send the author the decision of the reviewers and the changes requested by them, and after the changes are made, the text is returned to the same reviewers for the final decision. If one reviewer accepts the publication and another rejects it, the paper is evaluated by a third reviewer whose proposal is decisive.
The final approved text of the article (after the suggested changes and the approval of the editorial board) is sent to the editorial planning officers, the author being then informed of the date on which it will be published. The final decision on the publication of the article belongs to the editor-in-chief.
In case of forms of plagiarism, fabrication of data, etc., as well as some significant writing or content errors, the editor-in-chief may decide to reject the publication of the manuscript.
Peer reviewers for CONCEPT are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and ethical integrity, in alignment with international peer review standards and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Potential peer reviewers should inform the editor-in-chief of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript, allowing an informed decision about whether or not to invite the potential reviewer to participate in the review process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process.
Peer-reviewers
Professor PhD Leon Rubin (University of Essex UK, East 15 Acting School, Honorary Professor at GITIS, FRSA and FRAS, Dean of LASALLE College of the Arts, Singapore)
Dr Jozefina Komporaly (Senior Lecturer in Creative Research, University of the Arts, London, UK)
Dr. Vasiliki Selioni (Artistic Director of The Makings of the Actor)
Researcher PhD Juan Claudio Retes (Centro Nacional de Investigación, Documentación e Información Teatral "Rodolfo Usigli"/CITRU, INBAL, Ciudad de México)
Professor PhD Vinny Flaviana Hyunanda (UCAM, Universidad Católica de Murcia, Spain)
Professor Habil. PhD Anca-Doina Ciobotaru (UNAGE Iaşi, Romania)
Professor PhD Adrian Titieni (UNATC Bucharest, Romania)
Professor PhD Crenguța-Lăcrămioara Bizu (University of Bucharest, Romania)
Associate Professor Habil. PhD Ioana Petcu (UNAGE Iași, Romania)
Associate Professor Habil. PhD Otilia Huzum (West University, Timişoara, Romania)
Associate Professor PhD Olga Gancevici (Ștefan cel Mare University, Suceava, Romania)
Lecturer PhD Ana-Magdalena Petraru (Al.I. Cuza University Iaşi, Romania)
Research Assistant PhD Ciprian Făcăeru (CINETic, Romania)
