Peer Review Process

  • All submitted texts undergo a preliminary review by the editorial board as a first stage.
  • If the outcome of the preliminary review is positive, submissions undergo a double-blind external review. In special cases, a declaration stating the lack of a conflict of interest is required; relations which are considered conflict of interest are direct personal relation between the reviewer and the author of the text being reviewed, reporting relationships, or direct academic cooperation during the two years preceding the year of review. The texts are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers who are specialists in the relevant field. For texts in English or Spanish least one reviewer is a native speaker of the language.
  • The Author is informed of the outcome of the peer review process within three months from the editorial board confirming that the text has passed the internal review and will be peer-reviewed externally.
  • The review form is available at [Review form]
  • The reviews are written and contain an unambiguous recommendation of the reviewer concerning the publication of the text.
  • If the reviewer suggests important revisions, upon which the publication of the text is contingent, the Author should revise the text as directed or alternatively inform the editorial board why he or she is rejecting the suggestions.
  • In the event of a substantial divergence in the conclusions of two reviews, the editorial board may, upon analysing the conclusions, commission another review.
  • A submitted text is published when reviewers conclude that it should be published without revisions or when the Author has revised the text in accordance with the recommendation of the reviewers.
  • A submitted text is not published if
    1. it has not been qualified for the review process due to divergence from the thematic profile of the journal; or
    2. if it did not pass the preliminary internal review process and thus was not qualified for peer review; or
    3. if the recommendation of the reviewers is not to publish; or
    4. if the Author has not made major revisions recommended by reviewers.
  • The names of the reviewers of all issues published in each year are published in the last issue of the year and (for each year) in the reviewers list.
  • The review process is free of charge.
  • The editorial board strives to carry out the review process in accordance with the recommendations contained in the document „Dobre obyczaje w nauce” [Best practice in research] and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland.