Stimați colegi,

Vă invităm să participați la Cel de-al XXIV-lea Congres SNPCAR şi a 46-a Conferinţă Naţională de Neurologie-Psihiatrie a Copilului şi Adolescentului şi Profesiuni Asociate din România cu participare internaţională

25-28 septembrie 2024 – CRAIOVA, Hotel Ramada

Pentru a vă înscrie la congres, vă rugăm să apăsați aici.

Vă așteptăm cu drag!

Asist. Univ. Dr. Cojocaru Adriana – Președinte SNPCAR

Informații şi înregistrări: vezi primul anunț 

The Peer Review Process and Policies

Distribuie pe:

Quick Links: downloads for reviewers
01. Become a Reviewer: .doc format (editable) or .pdf format
02. Article Review Form: .doc format (editable) or .pdf format

The Romanian Journal of Child and Adolescent Neurology and Psychiatry operates a peer-review system. Manuscripts that are deemed suitable for peer-review will be assigned to three expert reviewers. Reviewers may be members of the Editorial Board and external experts in the field.

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff and peer-reviewed by at least 3 reviewers, experts with reputation in the field of the article.

The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice.

The Romanian Journal of Child and Adolescent Neurology and Psychiatry is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, this I why we ask for an efficient editorial process, respecting the timing of the review.

We comply with the anonymity rules of the peer review process and with the blind review, so that we don’t release the reviewers’ identities to the authors. The advantage of this blind review process is the fact that it allows for impartial decisions free from influence by the author.

Guide for the Reviewers
First of all, the criteria scientific value, relevance and international impact must be evaluated. The reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision on publication of the manuscript. Reviewers should address the following points:

Are the requirements comprised in the Instructions for Authors respected?
Is the question posed original, significant and well defined?
Are the Methods appropriate chosen and well described?
Are the Methods suitable, clearly described and reproducible/ replicable by peers in the field?
Are the data clear, coherent and well controlled?
Are the authors’ conclusions supported by the existing data?
Are the interpretation, the Discussion and Conclusions supported by the data?
Are the text, the Tables and Figures well organized?
Are there any ethical issues that should be raised?
Reviewers are also reminded of the importance of timely reviews
Please complete the Reviewers’ Form and send it by e-mail to: and