Scientific assessment of the papers is done in several steps, as follows:

• First Call for Papers is sent;
• Reception and record of authors, titles of papers, and abstracts of papers;
• Second Call for Papers containing instructions for contributors;
• Reception and record of scientific papers (electronic format);
• Handing in papers to scientific reviewers;
• Scientific revision of the papers and sending notes to authors and to the Organising Committee;
• Correction of the papers (if the case);
• Editing the Proceedings;
• Publishing the Proceedings.

Each scientific reviewer communicates his/her observations on the following form:

OPINION OF SCIENTIFIC REVIEWER

Name of the Author: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Title of the Paper: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Name of Scientific reviewer: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scientific degree of the Reviewer: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Paper: can be published - in its original form £

- with slight changes £

- with considerable changes £

Cannot be published because of its quality £

Cannot be published because of its topic £

Cannot be published because of its poor English / French etc. £

Reasons for refusing publication:

Does the paper contain new results / approaches compared to the existing ones?

yes £

no £

Notes for the editing / publishing process:

Ready to be edited / published £

Chart no…. can be reduced £

Chart no… can be omitted £

Table no… can be diminished £

Table no… can be omitted £

Data in Chart no… are not convincing £

Data in Table no… are not convincing £

Other recommendations for the authors concerning the changing or the rewriting of the paper:

Month………………Day………Year……

Signature of the Scientific Reviewer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In order to ensure a high scientific level for the Symposium and the proceedings, the scientific revision is done by scientific reviewers, professors with a high professional level from Romanian and foreign universities. For the year 2006, the reviewers’ team was made up of the following:

Professor Branko MARINKOVIČ – Novi Sad University (SERBIA)

Professor Dragan DJUKIČ – Novi Sad University (SERBIA)

Professor Mladen JURSIČ – Strossmayer University, Osijek (CROATIA)

Professor Marija DURKIČ – Strossmayer University, Osijek (CROATIA)

Dr. Károly BODNÁR – University of Szeged (HUNGARY)

Professor Paul PIRSAN – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Professor Iacob BORZA – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Professor Ioan RUSU – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Professor Radu PALICICA – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Professor Gheorghe SIMERIA – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Assistant Professor Ionel SAMFIRA – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)

Assistant Professor Georgeta RATA – USAMVB, Timisoara (ROMANIA)