Search

Statement of peer review policy

Review procedure

  1. After qualifying the article submitted by the Author as compatible with the profile of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief, after possible consultation with the subject editors, selects two independent reviewers from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the Author of the publication. The selection of reviewers is made from among the authorities recognized in the field, whereby the selected reviewer must guarantee: independence of opinion; absence of conflict of interest, expressed, in particular, in the absence of direct personal or business relations with the Author of the manuscript and direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review; maintaining confidentiality as to the content of the materials, as well as opinions about them.
  2. For evaluation of articles in a foreign language, at least one of the appointed reviewers must be affiliated with an academic unit or foreign institution other than the Author of the paper.
  3. Once the reviewers are selected, the editor-in-chief contacts them specifying the subject of the publication (description or abstract), the required scope of the review, and the deadline for the review.
  4. After the reviewers accept the offer, the editors send them the full text of the article requiring review.
  5. The review of the article follows a standard “double blind review” procedure, which means that the authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities. Before sending the article to the reviewer, the editors make every effort to remove from the content of the article any information that could identify the Author. The editors allow other review procedures in justified cases, but in this case the reviewer is required to sign a declaration of interest.
  6. The reviewers’ personalities are confidential and may be declassified only at the author’s request and with the reviewer’s consent, especially in the case of a negative review or a manuscript containing questionable elements.
  7. The reviewer forwards the prepared review in electronic form to the editor’s email address provided in the correspondence. In addition to the review form, the reviewer can also provide his comments in the form of annotated comments in the electronic version of the reviewed article.
  8. Po wpłynięciu recenzji, redakcja: 
    • can inform the Author of its receipt (for the review not requiring amendments, or in the case of the need to introduce only minor editorial changes)
    • directs the review containing critical comments to the author who makes any amendments required in the case of comments, with which he disagrees – prepares a response to the review,
    • refers the article again to the reviewer after the author has made changes – if the reviewer finds it necessary to review again.
  9. The final decision to print a scientific article is made by the editor based on an analysis of the comments in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.
  10. In the case of a disqualifying review, the editor-in-chief decides either to reject the paper or to refer the article to another reviewer.
  11. The final version of the article is sent to the language editor and the statistical editor (if necessary), and then – after breaking and mashing – it is sent to the Author for author’s correction.
  12. Texts of a non-scientific nature do not require review and are qualified for publication directly by the editor-in-chief.
Skip to content