The Process of Professional Evaluation Applied by the Partium Press
The types of professional evaluation performed by the Partium Press are the following:
1. Blind peer-review evaluation
The blind peer-review is a process based on the evaluation and examination of materials made for the public and which guarantees an anonymous process, the experts and authors not knowing each other’s identity.
In this process the participating evaluators must have a diverse professional background, and if possible, they must specialize in fields related to the subject of evaluation.
The evaluators are chosen by the publishing house or the managing editors of the volumes, the corresponding article being peer-viewed by an expert that has the corresponding professional background.
The desks analyze the text based on the following criteria, independent of each other:
- coherence of the text;
- clarity of phrasing;
- quality of information;
- originality, professionalism, professional contribution;
- methodology, where there it is or where there it is needed;
- quality of bibliography and references;
- other criteria judged relevant by the desk.
After analyzing the text, the desks form a professional opinion for the publishing house or the editor of the volume, in which they cover the following aspects:
- the strengths of the text (content, language, structure, references)
- recommendations for the author (content, language, structure, references)
The professional opinion must contain suggestions of the rapporteur from the following:
- he or she recommends the publication of the material
- he or she allows the publication of the material (with modification)
- he or she allows the publication of the material with reservation (with some modifications)
- he or she rejects the publication of the material
The professional opinion is sent to the author. In case the material is accepted, the author must consider the recommendations and suggestions of the desks.
In case the desk allowed the publication of material with reservation (with modification), the author must implement them; the article can only be published if the respective modifications have been performed.
If the desk rejects the publication of the material, it will be communicated to the author.
2. Double blind peer review
In this case the process is similar to the one presented in the first section but it differs in requiring two desks to provide the most objective evaluation possible and during the editorial process, both the opinions will be considered. The text can only be published if neither of the desks rejects it. If one of the desks rejects the text, it cannot be published.
3. The process of professional review of monographies and authorial volumes
In their case, the evaluating process has the following stages:
- the texts are analyzed at the editorial office in order to see whether they meet the editorial quality standards;
- after the examination, two strategies can be accepted:
a. the editorial office sends the text to a desk who specializes in the field the volume shall be published in. In this case, the desk communicates the decision, observations and eventual required modifications to the publishing house. The publishing house sends the professional opinion, his or her decision about the publication and the eventual required modifications to the author. After performing the required modifications, the desk inspects the final text and makes his or her decision on the publication.
b. the author of the issue presents the text and the detailed professional opinion of the experts in the given field (they choose the desk based on the author’s suggestion). In this case the editors decide whether the material represents a solid base for the publication of the volume or they will have to proceed as in section A.