Data on the peer reviewing of articles submitted for publication in the periodical
Ziridava Studia Archaeologica

The peer review process of articles submitted to be published in Ziridava Studia Archaeologica follows the international norms in the field.
Papers are submitted to the editorial panel’s secretary who appoints one of the issue’s editors to decide if they fit the periodical’s profile (according to the field of study on which each paper focuses).
If the paper is suitable, then the issue editor in charge contacts two referees who are members of the academic community and are specialists in the paper’s main field and topic. In seven days the referees decide to evaluate the article and to express their opinion. If during this period one of the referees decides he/she is unable to complete a scientific assessment of the article, the issue editor appoints another specialist. The referees can take up to a month to form their opinion of the article and reach a decision. The two evaluators must take into consideration the following aspects during their reviewing of articles:
- The practical relevance and impact that the article has on the scientific community;
- The article’s originality and results;
- The scientific quality of the paper;
- The conclusions and/or recommendations, and/or the subsequent investigations identified by the author(s).
Each of these criteria is evaluated on a scale from 5 to 1.
- Eventually, the two referees can recommend one of the following situations:
- The article is accepted in the state submitted by the author(s);
- The article will be accepted after major or minor corrections;
- The article is rejected in its current state.
- The final decision to accept or reject papers belong to the issue editor and is based on the evaluations made by the two referees.


Review form for the scientific periodical
Contact address:

Complexul Muzeal Arad, Piaţa George Enescu, no. 1, Arad, România, 310131;
Periodical webpage:
Referee name:
Article title:
1. Practical significance and present interest of the article
5-Exceptional,  4-Significant,  3-Minor,  2-Debatable, 1- None of the above
2. Originality and results
5-Exceptional,  4-Significant,  3-Minor,  2-Debatable, 1- None of the above
3. Academic level
5-Exceptional,  4-Significant,  3-Minor,  2-Debatable, 1- None of the above
4. Recommendations for the author/authors
(Model, vocabulary employed, style, graphic materials, etc.
5. Conclusions
To be published in the actual state
To be published after revision of corrections made
To be rejected

* Comments will be stated by the reviewers in writing, 5-10 lines for each aspect.