2 Constantin Daicoviciu St.,
e-ISSN: 2783-9710
p-ISSN: 1454-1521
creative com 






The peer review process of the scientific journal Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica follows international evaluation standards. All manuscripts will be subjected to a double-blind peer review process involving two or more peer reviewers.

The peer review process includes the following steps:

1. Submission of the paper
The manuscripts are submitted by e-mail at the following addresses: or
Submission deadline: 30 June.

2. Editorial Board Assessment
The Editorial Board checks the submitted papers to ensure that they comply with the journal's editorial and scientific requirements and to determine whether the articles are of interest to the journal. If not, they can be rejected without being sent to a reviewer.

3. The Reviewers
The editors choose two reviewers for each article whose areas of expertise correspond to the article's topic. The selected reviewers will not be affiliated with our institution. The peer review process is double-blind, meaning the author’s name remains unknown to the reviewers and vice versa. If one of the peer reviewers refuses, another one will be selected.
The peer reviewer will read the article and make comments and suggestions using the existing peer review form. When needed, he/she can insert comments in the text. The editors will consider both reviews of the article. If there is a major difference between them, the editors will contact an additional reviewer.
If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors will receive the anonymized peer review form containing the revisions they are required to perform or will be notified if the paper is accepted as it stands. Please note that the authors must perform all the changes indicated by the reviewers or argue in support of the rejection. Otherwise, their papers can be rejected. The authors requested to submit revisions will send the revised versions of their papers to the editors (the editors will mention the final deadline in their correspondence with each author).

4. The Decision
The editorial board makes the final decision to publish the article and conveys it to the author.


Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica

Name of the reviewer, institutional affiliation:
Article title:
Please evaluate the content of the article based on the following criteria:
a) Content (please select one option):
  Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor
Problem statement          
Literature review          
Research goals and statements          

Original contribution to the field

Relevance of the research methodology          

Adequacy of the theoretical approach

Organization of the paper          
Relevance of the conclusions and discussions          
Content of the summary          

b) Style & Grammar (please select one option):
  Excellent Very Good Good Poor Very Poor
Writing style          
Clarity of the ideas presented          
Grammatical accuracy          
c) Reviewer’s comments to the editor:
d) Reviewer’s comments to the author:
e) Final decision (please select one option):
1. accept without any changes (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper in its original form
2. accept with minor revisions (acceptance): the journal will publish the paper and ask the author to make small corrections
3. accept after major revisions (conditional acceptance): the journal will publish the paper provided the authors make the changes suggested by the reviewers and/or editors
4. revise and resubmit (conditional rejection): the journal is willing to reconsider the paper in another round of decision-making after the authors make major changes
5. reject the paper (outright rejection): the journal will not publish the paper or reconsider it even if the authors make major revisions
f) Do you want to review the manuscript again?  
Yes / No
Date and place