Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy
Double-blind evaluation in accordance with international standards
Scientific Evaluation Policy (Peer Review)
ACS Publishing House – Art Conservation Support

ACS Publishing House is committed to ensuring the scientific quality and academic integrity of the works it publishes. To achieve this goal, submitted manuscripts may undergo an independent scientific evaluation carried out by specialists in relevant fields.

The evaluation process assesses the scientific value, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of the work for the fields of cultural heritage conservation and restoration, art history, and interdisciplinary heritage studies.

Review Model

ACS Publishing House applies a double-blind peer review system for articles and contributions published in its editorial collections and periodicals, including the annual scientific journal “Caietele restaurării”.

Within this process:

• authors’ identities are not disclosed to reviewers;

• reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.

This approach ensures impartial evaluation and reduces potential bias. Identifying information is removed from manuscripts prior to review.

Each manuscript is typically evaluated by two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant academic field. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific competence and institutional affiliation and must have no conflicts of interest.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. They generally specialize in:

• cultural heritage conservation and restoration;

• art history and heritage studies;

• historical architecture and built heritage conservation;

• materials science applied to heritage conservation;

• archaeology or related disciplines.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently;

• assess originality, scientific quality, and relevance;

• examine clarity of argumentation and methodology;

• identify relevant uncited works;

• provide constructive feedback;

• evaluate relevance to the field.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and not use unpublished information for personal or professional gain.

If a conflict of interest arises or an objective review is not possible, reviewers must notify the editorial team and decline the review.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers may consider:

• originality and contribution to the field;

• methodological rigor and structure;

• relevance for research and practice;

• clarity and coherence;

• accuracy of references;

• quality of visual documentation or case studies.

Review Outcomes

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editorial team may:

• accept the manuscript;

• request minor revisions;

• request major revisions and resubmission;

• reject the manuscript.

Revision and Editorial Decision

Authors are encouraged to revise manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments and resubmit when required.

Final decisions are made by the editorial team based on:

• reviewers’ reports;

• relevance to the editorial profile;

• compliance with ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest. Alternative reviewers will be appointed where necessary.

Transparency and Integrity

ACS Publishing House ensures transparency and fairness in the review process. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit.

Through this process, the publisher supports rigorous research, constructive academic dialogue, and the advancement of knowledge in the field of cultural heritage conservation.