Submissions undergo a double blind review process, in which identities of author(s) and reviewer(s) are not disclosed.

Each paper submitted to the International Journal Vallis Aurea is subject to the following review procedures:

  1. it is reviewed by the editors for general suitability for this publication
  2. it is checked using a special software program for preventing plagiarism using Turnitin
  3. two reviewers are selected and a double blind review process takes place
  4. based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the editors then decide whether the particular article should be accepted, revised or rejected, or the third (fourth) reviewer will be engaged.

Reviewers’ comments will be returned to the original author.  Where appropriate, authors will be encouraged to revise the paper and to resubmit it for further consideration.

Papers are categorized under one of these classifications:

  • Original scientific paper – it contains unpublished results of original scientific research, and the scientific information is exposed so that the accuracy of the analyzes and extracts, on which the results are based, can be verified
  • Short communication, Note – An original scientific paper that contains previously unpublished results of a short but completed scientific research, or shows a shorter segment of ongoing research (if that segment can be treated as a complete unit) or describes an original laboratory method.
  • Preliminary communication – It contains previously unpublished preliminary results of ongoing scientific research that should be published soon. It does not necessarily have enough detail to repeat and verify the results. 
  • Review article – A review paper is a scientific paper that contains an original, concise and critical presentation of an area or part of it in which the author actively works. The role of the author’s original contribution in the field must be emphasized, considering the already published works and the review of those works. The review also contains the latest information on the current state of development and direction (so-called state-of-the-art reviews). They can be written by one or a group of authors and are usually written at the request of the editor.

The peer review process is an independent quality control procedure for articles submitted to journal. Because it is so difficult for authors to be objective about their own writing, they benefit greatly from having someone else read and comment upon their work. Peer review is vital for enhancing the quality, credibility and acceptability of published research and practice papers.

Please observe carefully the following guidelines on the role of the reviewer:

  • Expertise: Papers are not always sent to a reviewer whose field is identical to the subject matter of that paper. You do not have to be precisely qualified in a field to be a constructive reviewer. In fact, quite the contrary, an excellent paper will speak beyond its narrowly defined field. If, however, a paper is so distant from your field that you do not feel qualified to judge its merits, please return it to the publishing manager for the journal, who will locate another reviewer.
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers receive unpublished work which must be treated as confidential until published. Reviewers must not disclose to others which papers they have reviewed; nor are they to share those papers with any other person.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest or any other factor, which may affect their independence – in cases for instance where they have received a paper of a colleague or an intellectual opponent. In cases of conflict of interest, please notify the editorial team of your inability to review a particular paper.
  • Intellectual Merit: A paper must be judged on its intellectual merits alone. Personal criticism or criticism based solely on the political or social views of the reviewer, is not acceptable.
  • Full Explanation: Critical or negative judgments must be fully supported by detailed reference to evidence from the paper under review or other relevant sources.
  • Plagiarism and Copyright: If a reviewer considers that a paper may contain plagiarism or that it might breach another party’s copyright, they should notify the editors, providing the relevant citations to support their claim.
  • Responsiveness: Reviewers are asked to return their reports within four weeks.
Privacy Settings
Name Enabled
Technical Cookies
In order to use this website we use the following technically required cookies: wordpress_test_cookie,wordpress_logged_in_,wordpress_sec.
We use Cookies to give you a better website experience.
Google Analytics
We track anonymized user information to improve our website.

We use cookies to be able to provide social media features, analyse our traffic and behaviour of the visitors on our website and for marketing purposes. We never share this information to 3rd party partner companies.