Editor de active Editor de active

Peer Reviewer's Guide

Peer-review policy

The rules outlined on this page applies to the whole review practice of the journals.

General information

The following types of contribution to the journals are peer-reviewed: Articles, Technical Reports, Analysis, Reviews and Insight articles. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us.

Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript.

Online manuscript review

We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via SCIPIO.ro online system by following the link provided in the editor's request for review. There is an online help guide to assist in using this system, and a helpdesk email account for any technical problems.

Criteria for publication

The journals receive submissions than they can't publish. To be published in the journal, a paper should meet four general criteria:

  • Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
  • Novel.
  • Of importance to scientists in the specific field.
  • Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field.

The review process

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions
  • Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
  • Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.

When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.

Selecting peer-reviewers

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. For instance, we avoid using people who are slow, careless, or do not provide reasoning for their views, whether harsh or lenient.

We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.


The journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.


We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. Unless they feel strongly, however, we prefer that reviewers should remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors without the editor's knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities while the manuscript is under consideration, this should be done via the editor, or if this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author.

We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

Editing referees' reports

As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers' reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.

Peer-review publication policies

All contributions submitted to journal that are selected for peer-review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.

As a condition of agreeing to assess the manuscript, all reviewers undertake to keep submitted manuscripts and associated data confidential, and not to redistribute them without permission from the journal. If a reviewer seeks advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, he or she ensures that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. By this and by other means, the journal endeavour to keep the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date other than in the specific case of its embargoed press release available to registered journalists. Although we go to every effort to ensure reviewers honour their promise to ensure confidentiality, we are not responsible for the conduct of reviewers.

Ethics and security

The journal editor may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned. 

Pagina revistei - www.philobiblon.ro/www.philobiblon.eu Pagina revistei - www.philobiblon.ro/www.philobiblon.eu

Copertă număr curent
  • Revistă: Philobiblon - Journal of the Lucian Blaga Central University Library, Cluj
  • Editură Cluj University Press
  • Redactor şef Istvan Kiraly
  • ISSN 2247-8442
  • eISSN 1224-7448
  • Data ultimului număr 30 Iun 2011
  • Data urmatorului număr 15 Dec 2011

Informaţii generale Informaţii generale


Fără a se rupe de identitatea ei afirmată odată cu apariţia primului său volum in 1996, începând cu anul 2011, revistaPhilobiblon, editată de Departamentul de Cercetare al Bibliotecii Centrale Universitare „Lucian Blaga" din Cluj, a decis să-şi definească un nou profil, focusându-se pe conexiuni multidisciplinare în Ştiinţele Umaniste (Humanities). Ca atare va purta de acum înainte în titlul ei specificarea: Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities.

Sensul în care publicaţia îşi asumă cercetările şi interesul său multidisciplinar în Ştiinţele Umaniste se conturează în mod principal – dar selectiv – pornind de la cel consacrat pe de o parte în definiţia termenului de către Ohio Humanities Council dar, pe de altă parte, şi în „Categoria" Thomson Reuters Humanities, Multidisciplinary" din Arts & Humanities Citation Index – 2011

Philobiblon devine astfel un forum particular al sondării sensurilor lumilor şi a vieţilor noastre umane,problematizate prin cercetări multidisciplinare de istorie, filosofie, antropologie, etică, comunicare umană, lingvistică, de teorie şi critică literară, de teoria şi critica artelor, cât şi prin investigaţii aparţinând acelor aspecte ale ştiinţelor care implică perspective deopotrivă filosofice, istorice, antropologice şi culturale. Şi care sunt asumate de revistă împreună cu investigaţii purtate asupra înregistrărilor, documentelor etc. din colecţiile unor biblioteci şi arhive. Studiile promovate în revistă au de aceea chemarea de a cerceta multidisciplinar nu doar colecţii istorico-documentare, ci să problematizeze, să reformuleze sensurile şi misiunile – istorice şi actuale! – ale instituţiilorşi profesiilor bibliotecare.


Studiile publicate în Philobiblon (ISSN 2247-8442 și ISSN-L 1224-7448) sunt - începând cu anul 1996 - preluate şi difuzate cu text integral de către baza internaţională de date editată de EBSCO Publishing Co, în două din subbazele sale:


Academic Search Complete

- din 2005 - prezent


Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text

- seria completă din 1996 - prezent


Philobiblon este acreditată de către Consiliul Naţional al Cercetării Ştiinţifice din învăţământul Superior din România, în Categoria B Plus.

Caută Caută

Toate câmpurile prea lungi
Câmpul autor este prea lung  
Titlul introdus este prea lung  
Câmpul volum este prea lung  
Câmpul volum este greşit  
Câmpul numărului este prea lung  
Câmpul număr este completat greşit  
Câmpul pagină este prea lung  
Câmpul pagină este greşit  

Acreditări Acreditări


        Philobiblon este acreditată de către Consiliul Naţional al Cercetării Ştiinţifice din învăţământul Superior din România, actualul CNCS, în Categoria B .

Contact Contact


István Király V.
Chief editor
Strada Clinicilor nr. 2
Jud. Cluj
E-mail: philobib@bcucluj.ro
Telephone: + 40- 264- 59- 70- 92/137
Fax: + 40- 264- 59-76-33