This review policy is followed for all papers submitted to all further editions of the EINCO conference managed by the Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Oradea, starting with the 21^st edition – EINCO 2025.

In the first instance, contributors are asked to submit a full paper not exceeding 5000 words in length, including abstract, figures, references and appendices for a total of 10 pages, which must comply with the Model paper. The conference selection panel considers all full papers that are received by the published closing date.

When the full paper is submitted, it is double-blind reviewed by members of the Scientific Committee of the Journal titled “Analele Universităţii din Oradea. Ştiinţe Economice / The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences” (AUOES), ISSN-1582-5450 (electronic format, CD-ROM and on-line), ISSN – 1222-569X (print format), Editura Universităţii din Oradea / Oradea University Press, to ensure an adequate scientific standard, that the paper is of a suitable length, the standard of English is adequate and the paper is appropriately referenced. The double-blind review focuses on 14 issues intended to ensure that the paper is relevant to the EINCO conference goals and objectives, is of a sufficiently high quality to be accepted for presentation at the conference as well as for the publication in the AUOES, and meets the submission criteria laid down by the AUOES Editorial Board. A copy of the Reviewer’s Form that is sent to reviewers can be seen here.

For authors whose first language is not English we request to have their work proof-read prior to submission by a native English speaker (or at least a fluent English speaker). Papers can be rejected due to a poor standard of English.

In the event that a reviewer rejects a paper, a second opinion will be taken and the final decision about acceptance will be made by the AUOES Editorial Board.

After the double-blind reviewing process, the Editorial Board sends a notification e-mail of paper/s acceptance or rejection to the author/s. The author/s whose paper/s is/are accepted contains the notification of paper/s acceptance (with any requested changes after the double-blind reviewing process) and the information about the foreseen presentation type of the accepted paper/s: either oral or Poster-type presentation in the section the paper is affiliated with. Different templates for the Poster-type presentation are available for download in the Poster-type Presentation Tips and Templates to download section of the EINCO Conference.

The AUOES issues are produced in both printed and electronic form.

Submission dates can be found on the web page for each individual edition of the EINCO conference.

 

MATERIAL DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in AUOES published papers are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the editorial board, Oradea University Press or the organization to which the authors are affiliated.

 

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The names and email addresses entered in the EINCO site and/or AUOES journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this conference/journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing a paper, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the paper. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

 

Conducting the Review

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the paper you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you wish to elicit an opinion from colleagues or students regarding the paper you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is involved will also need to keep the review process confidential.

You should not attempt to contact the author if you believe you might know her or him.

Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

According to our Review Policy, you will be asked to evaluate the paper on the points included in the Reviewer’s Form.

Also, you will be asked to provide comments on the following:

• A summary of your reactions to the paper;
• The major strengths of the research;
• Any major shortfalls of the paper;
• A list of any problem areas that need to be addressed (for minor revisions);
• How the author(s) can improve the quality and contribution of the manuscript;
• The major factor that influenced your decision.

 

Communicating your Report to the Editor

After evaluating the paper according to the Reviewer’s Form, you must make a recommendation by choosing one of the following alternatives:

1. Unconditional acceptance (accept without revision)
2. Conditional acceptance with minor revision (revise)
3. Revise & Resubmit with minor revision
4. Revise & Resubmit with major revision
5. Reject – not suitable for publication in this journal (explain reason in report)

As a courtesy, let the editor know if it looks like you might miss your deadline. Kindly remember that commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

Last, clearly identify what revision is required, so the editor could know if you would be able to review the revised paper.

 

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

At the time of the review of a paper considered for publication in the Journal “The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences” (AUOES), reviewers must take into consideration the following ethical standards:

1. Reviewers commit themselves to assist the Editorial Board in the editorial decisions regarding the suitability of a paper for publication in the AUOES.
2. Manuscripts will always be evaluated only based on their intellectual merit and contribution to the aims and scope of the AUOES, as the reviewers should adhere to standards of fairness, integrity, and objectivity. Kindly note that personal criticism is unacceptable.
3. Reviewers who feel that their review comments might be biased and/or unqualified regarding a particular manuscript submitted for publication to the AUOES should notify the AUOES Editorial Board immediately and excuse themselves from the review process.
4. Reviewers should be clear in their review comments and provide proper explanations and arguments for their decisions. If suspicion is raised about the originality of the manuscript (unattributed to source), reviewers are expected to notify the Editorial Board immediately, with the appropriate justification.
5. During the review process, reviewers will keep in mind at all times that the manuscript and related materials are confidential.
6. Reviewers warrant that they will not use the manuscripts and related materials submitted for publication in the AUOES for any other purpose other than the double-blind peer review process, without the AUOES Editorial Board´s and/or author´s permission.

 

MATERIAL DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed in AUOES published papers are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the editorial board, Oradea University Press or the organization to which the authors are affiliated.

 

PRIVACY STATEMENT

The names and email addresses entered in the AUOES journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.