Meridian Critic

Main Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to the journal should be original articles in the field of language, cultural and literary studies, comparative literature, and other interdisciplinary research. Accepted manuscripts should be:

• theoretical-practical contributions to the above-mentioned fields;
• essays, interviews and articles on the main topics of interest;
• reviews that synthesize findings and disseminate opinions on current topics;
• reviews of the most influential works in the fields explored by the journal.

Meridian critic is financed by Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava. No publication costs are charged for article processing.

Accepted articles are published on account of scientific value only. Editorial decisions are based on the relevance of a manuscript to the journal and on the manuscript’s originality, quality, and contribution to its specific field of knowledge. The criteria for publication of scientific papers in Meridian critic are:

• the outstanding importance of the subject matter;
• the impact of scientific investigation and the quality of writing;
• the contribution to the field, encompassing the current state of knowledge;
• the originality of proposed analyses;
• compliance with scientific principles of research, analysis and interpretation correlated with bibliographic and reference accuracy;
• the quality of the conception and elaboration of the paper, the construction of the scientific approach, the accuracy of presentations and the quality of argumentation.

3. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Meridian Critic that fit within the scope of the journal undergo similarity check and the double-blind review process with the aim of selecting the most significant and thought-provoking scientific texts in the given field of knowledge.

After concealing the authors’ names, the Editorial Secretary or/and the Executive Editor send by e-mail the full text of the manuscripts to the consultants from the journal’s list of peer-reviewers, who have expert knowledge of the subject area of the manuscript and a different affiliation from that of the authors. Reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscripts in two weeks and to also make useful comments so as to enable the author(s) improve the quality of the manuscript.

The peer-reviewers’ and the Executive Editor’s comments contribute to the final decision of the Editor-in-Chief. This decision, together with the reviewers’ observations, are sent to authors by e-mail. Any rejection should highlight and explain to authors the weaknesses of the manuscript in order to both clarify the Editors’ option to turn the article down and enable authors to resubmit their articles to the same or another journal. This does not mean that reviewers are expected to give advice and detailed explanations to authors whose articles fail to be accepted for publication. Upon rejection of a manuscript, peer-reviewers should provide the Editorial Board with a concise and convincing assessment that expounds on their decision.

The reviewers’ evaluation take into account the following criteria:

• novelty and significance of research;
• clarity of hypotheses and relevance of contribution to the advancement of knowledge on specific matters;
• authors’ contribution to the development of the scientific field from a gnoseological, theoretical, methodological, and epistemological perspective;
• originality of approach and its impact on the evolution of the scientific domain;
• the principles on which the design and structure of the text have been conceived;
• optimal proportions of various components of the article (theoretical, practical, methodological, exegetical);
• elements that make the article improper for publication;
• conceivable alterations of the text that might improve the quality of the text;
• maintenance of ethical standards in publication and research (bibliography, references and quotations, and secondary sources are rendered correctly, topics and ideas do not oppose the established moral principles of society etc.).

The decision is usually made in less than six weeks after article submission. The Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Editor will communicate the result of the peer-review process (approval, revision, rejection) to the author.

Articles that need minor revision are expected to be improved in four weeks after the decision has been transmitted to authors whereas those that require major alteration are expected to be resubmitted in two months. Authors that do not observe deadlines will have their articles rejected.

Comments from reviewers are examined by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Executive Editors, who make the final decision that is transmitted to the author by e-mail.

The editorial staff is responsible for the quality and selection for publication of the manuscripts while authors are fully and solely responsible for the contents of their work.