REVIEWING PROCESS

Submitted articles undergo a multi-stage evaluation and editing process aimed at selecting, preparing, and publishing the highest quality contributions.

REVIEW TIMELINE

The journal aims to provide authors with a first decision within 6-8 weeks from the date of submission. This timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors will be kept informed throughout the review process.

FIRST STAGE: INITIAL SCREENING

First, the executive editor checks the received contributions using plagiarism detection tools and assesses adherence to the characteristics of a scholarly text. We are using plagiarism detection software to verify the originality of papers submitted to the journal. Sistemantiplagiat software is used to scan papers for instances of plagiarism.

Manuscripts must comply with formatting and structural requirements detailed in the Guidelines for Authors page.

SECOND STAGE: PEER REVIEW

After assessing the plagiarism detection result, the evaluation process of the articles continue with a double blinded review (the author is unaware of the reviewers’ names, and vice versa) which consists of two stages:

First stage: Editorial board members check the articles for compliance with the requirements specified in Guidelines for authors. Articles that do not meet those requirements are returned to authors to be revised.

Second stage: The editorial board forwards the anonymized author contribution to two independent reviewers selected from the existing pool of experts, who assess the scientific value of the paper. Author’s identity remains unknown to the reviewers. The reviewers must complete the following score sheet for each article.

Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial board maintains a diverse pool of qualified reviewers from various countries and institutions to ensure objective evaluation.

EDITORIAL DECISIONS

Based on the recommendations made by the scientific reviewers, Editorial board members may take the following decisions:

• the paper will be published as-is;
• the paper will be published after minor revisions;
• the paper will be published after major revisions;
• the paper will not be published.

In every case the author is informed about the outcome. The outcome of the anonymous peer review is mandatory for the author, who must incorporate the reviewers’ comments and recommendations within the timeframe specified by the executive editor. In case of inadequate or delayed revisions of the author’s contribution, the editorial board reserves the right to reject the article’s publication.

APPEALS PROCESS

Authors who believe their manuscript was unjustly rejected may submit an appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at journal.dresmara@mapn.ro. The appeal must be submitted within 30 days of the rejection decision and should include:

• A detailed explanation of why the decision should be reconsidered;
• Point-by-point responses to reviewer comments;
• Any additional evidence supporting reconsideration.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek additional expert opinions. The decision on appeals is final.

EDITORIAL STANDARD

Journal of Defense Resources Management (JoDRM) publishes contributions that correspond to the profile of the journal. The editorial board accepts contributions exclusively in an electronic form, prepared in the MS Word text editor. The editor reserves the authority to make formal, terminological, language, graphic and typographic adaptations in the submitted text.

The journal publishes the author’s papers that pass through the review process.

POST-PUBLICATION CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS

JoDRM is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published record. If significant errors are discovered in published articles, the following procedures apply:

Errata: For minor errors that do not affect the main findings or conclusions, an erratum will be published. The erratum will be linked to the original article and clearly indicate the nature of the correction.

Corrigenda: For errors that may affect interpretation of results but do not invalidate the overall findings, a corrigendum may be issued by the authors with editorial approval.

Retractions: Articles may be retracted if they contain serious errors, evidence of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct. Retractions follow COPE guidelines and will clearly state the reason for retraction. Retracted articles remain available online with a clear retraction notice.

Authors who identify errors in their published work should immediately contact the editorial board at journal.dresmara@mapn.ro.

PUBLICATION ETHICAL STANDARDS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE GUIDE

The purpose of these Ethical Standards is to define the rights and duties of the editorial bodies, authors and reviewers in the process of publishing and set policies for the publishing process to ensure transparency and best quality, objectivity and neutrality of the journal. These Ethical Standards are in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), contained in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

For detailed information on authors’ responsibilities, authorship criteria, generative AI disclosure requirements, and copyright policies, please refer to the Guidelines for Authors page.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS

Editors’ responsibilities

• To treat all contributors, reviewers and other colleagues and journal stakeholders impartially, evaluating their activities objectively and fairly, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, political views, or ethnic background.
• To ensure that the evaluation and publication of submitted contributions is guided primarily by technical quality and scholarly merit. Commercial considerations, as well as any other forms of undue influence, are not acceptable.
• To implement measures that enable authors and others to report possible breaches of Ethical Standards, and establish procedures designed to prevent such violations. The editorial board commits to investigating all received complaints thoroughly, maintaining written documentation of such investigations, and taking immediate corrective action when violations are confirmed.
• To consistently apply the established Review Process. Publication in the Journal of Defense Resources Management (JoDRM) by members of its editorial bodies is subject to identical rules and criteria as those applied to submissions from other authors. Editorial board members must maintain the anonymity of their authorship. They must recuse themselves from Editorial Board voting during the assessment of their own contributions and leave the meeting during discussion of reviewer nominations for their work.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

• To familiarize themselves with the Ethical Standards and approved peer-review methodology, and to maintain full cooperation and communication with the editorial board throughout the preparation of the review assessment.
• To recuse themselves from the review process and inform the Editorial Board in a timely manner if, after examining the submitted text, the reviewer determines they cannot provide an adequate professional evaluation due to differences in their professional focus, expertise, or specialization.
• To contribute to enhancing the quality of the reviewed contribution by evaluating it objectively and impartially, and providing the assessment in a timely manner, with required depth and quality in accordance with the prescribed format of the review report.
• To maintain strict confidentiality of information provided by the author or editorial board in connection with the review assessment. Further use or dissemination of the reviewed contribution during or after the review process by the reviewer is prohibited.
• To notify the editorial board of any previously published or submitted text that demonstrates substantial similarity to the reviewed contribution.
• To refrain from attempting to identify the author and to notify the editorial board of any circumstances that could compromise the anonymity and objectivity of the peer-review process.
• To inform the editorial board promptly about any potential conflict of interest that may arise in connection with the peer-review process or any other circumstances that might affect its objectivity.

Editorial board upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractice. Anyone can notify the editorial board of the violations of the above Ethical Standards. The provider of such information should provide sufficient information and evidence for investigation to the editors.

JoDRM is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review of submissions, and to addressing conflict of interests between editors and reviewers. Problems are addressed by the editorial board who is committed to providing swift resolutions to disputes.