Reviewing process

PEER REVIEW POLICY AND PROCESS

Játéktér applies a rigorous and transparent methodology for attracting scholarly and critical contributions, ensuring the diversity and quality of content through specific mechanisms for thematic calls and the active recruitment of authors from national and international academic communities.

The editorial strategy is based on thematic issues, determined annually by the editorial board together with the academic council. Calls for contributions include: detailed thematic description, scholarly objectives, submission deadlines for abstracts and manuscripts, and editorial guidelines.

To ensure broad participation from researchers in Romania and abroad, calls are disseminated through:

• Direct recruitment: targeted outreach to university faculty and early-career researchers to contribute relevant studies.
• Institutional partnerships: collaboration with relevant universities and research institutes to promote calls within academic communities.

All manuscripts received in response to calls undergo initial screening by the editors (thematic relevance), followed by a double-blind peer review process.

Játéktér is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. All academic contributions — including research articles, essays, and studies — are subject to rigorous evaluation before a publication decision is made. The process is designed to ensure academic integrity, transparency, and editorial fairness.

Double-blind peer review means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the author, at any stage of the process.
1.The Review Process: Step by Step

1. The author submits their manuscript to the editorial office as an email attachment, to jatekteroffice@yahoo.com. Contributions must comply with the journal’s formatting guidelines and submission requirements.
2. The editorial office checks whether the manuscript meets basic formal requirements (format, length, footnote conventions, author information). Submissions that do not meet the requirements are returned to the author before any further evaluation.
3. The section editor assesses whether the work is original, relevant to the journal’s field, and appropriate for the relevant section. This constitutes the first editorial filter.
4. The Editor-in-Chief selects two members of the Academic Editorial Board whose expertise corresponds to the subject of the contribution. Selected reviewers are contacted by email and invited to evaluate the manuscript. To preserve double-blind anonymity, the author’s name and institutional affiliation are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers.
5. Each invited reviewer considers the invitation in relation to their own expertise, possible conflicts of interest, and availability, and then accepts or declines. If a reviewer declines, they are encouraged to suggest an alternative expert in their field.
6. Each reviewer reads the manuscript independently and submits a written evaluation by email to the Editor-in-Chief. The review must include a recommendation to: (a) accept the manuscript for publication; (b) accept with revisions (minor or major); or (c) reject the manuscript. Reviews are expected within 30 days of accepting the invitation.
7. The editorial team reviews both assessments and reaches an overall decision. If the two reviews are substantially contradictory, the Editor-in-Chief may consult a third reviewer or issue a final editorial rationale. The editorial team also considers whether the manuscript is better suited for a thematic print issue or for the journal’s online profile.
8. The author receives an email notification of the editorial decision — acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection — within 30 days of initial submission. In the case of a revision request, the author receives the anonymised reviewer comments and is given a deadline for resubmission.
9. In the case of accepted manuscripts, the editorial team reserves the right to publish the contribution in the print and/or online edition of the journal. The final version is agreed with the author prior to publication.

2. Evaluation Criteria

The following aspects are taken into account during the peer review process:

• Style: language, quality of writing, and formal editing
• The author’s familiarity with the relevant field of research and the quality of cited sources
• Relevance of the work to the field of theatre studies
• Degree of originality of the ideas and arguments presented
• Clarity of argumentation and overall structure of the work

• Review Form

3. Academic Editorial Board

The peer review process is conducted with the involvement of the journal’s international Academic Editorial Board. Current members are:

The composition of the Academic Editorial Board may be extended as the journal develops its international partnerships.

4. Editorial Ethics and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest (personal, institutional, or intellectual) before accepting a review invitation. Manuscripts authored by members of the Academic Editorial Board are handled by an independent editor, and the member in question does not participate in the review or decision-making process for that contribution.

All parties involved in the peer review process are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the content of manuscripts and the details of the evaluation.

Enquiries regarding the peer review process may be addressed to the editorial office.

jatekteroffice@yahoo.com