Procedure 3

The procedure for the peer-review system of the materials received for publication

1. Upon the receipt of the study / article from the author, the Secretary of the Editorial Board establishes a unique identification number, recording it in the list of identification numbers of the respective magazine issue.
2. Each study / article is sent for internal review to a member of the Editorial Board specialized in the field – or in a related field – approached by the study / article.
3. The Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer pays attention to the observance of the conditions for publication instructed by the Magazine and to the scientific requirements for the publication of the text, makes any necessary corrections regarding language, end matter and layout, as per the regulations of “Danubius” Journal, prints the text in the standard form and makes written recommendations for its improvement (informational, bibliographical), fills in and sign the Editorial Board Peer-Review Form. The Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer can reject the material from the beginning if it contains too many language and editing mistakes.
In the case of materials in foreign language, these shall be sent to an Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer, as well as to a Translator. The first shall make written appreciations concerning the scientific value of the material and the opportunity for its publication, while the Translator shall assess the level of the language in which the text was written. If the Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer considers that the text deserves to be published and that language mistakes are minimum, the Translator shall make, directly on the electronic version of the text, the corrections he / she deems necessary. If the language level is unsatisfying, the Translator shall decide whether a new, whole translation of the text is needed. In this case, the text is rejected, the author being notified of this fact by the Secretary of the Editorial Board, who will also bring to his / her notice the Translator’s recommendations, the author having the possibility to resubmit the material, retranslated, for a subsequent number.
4. The Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer (the Translator, respectively) sends to the Secretary of the Editorial Board the print on which he / she made the recommendations together with the Editorial Board Peer-Review Form. 
5. Following the publication proposal made by the Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer and by the Translator, the Secretary of the Editorial Office sends, after having decided, together with the Editor-in-chief and with the Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer, upon the Expert Peer-Reviewers, the electronic text in the form established by the Editorial Board Peer-Reviewer (the Translator, respectively) to the 2 Expert Peer-Reviewers.
6. Each of the Expert Peer-Reviewers shall follow the procedure described in item 3 above and shall fill in the Expert Peer-Review Form.
7. After receiving the documents from the Expert Peer-Reviewers, the Secretary of the Editorial Board, together with the Editor-in-chief, apply the recommendations made by the three reviewers in the electronic text, under the form of “remark”.
8. The Secretary of the Editorial Board sends the electronic document to the author or authors of the text.
9. Within 4 weeks, the author of the text makes the requested changes and sends the text again, in final version, to the Secretary of the Editorial Board.
10. The Secretary of the Editorial Board sends the final version of the electronic text to the internal correction prior to the printing of the issue.
11. The Secretary of the Editorial Board sees to sorting and recording, for each study / article on magazine issue, the documents concerning Editorial Board Peer-Review and Expert Peer-Review so that they can be provided to the boards accredited for the surveillance of the editorial office processes.