The article review procedure complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in the document „Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce” (Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science), Warsaw 2011.
\nAll submissions undergo preliminary formal and substantive assessment by the Editorial Board. If an article is in line with the profile of the journal and fulfils the requirements listed in the “Information for Authors”, it passes to the next stage of the procedure.
\nThe editorial assistant sends the submissions to two reviewers for assessment.
\nThe Editorial Board selects the reviewers from among specialists in a given field, taking into account the subject editor’s suggestion. A reviewer may come from the Editorial Board’s list of regular reviewers or from outside the list.
\nIn the case of foreign language submissions one of the reviewers is, if possible, a person affiliated to an institution in a country other than the country in which the author of the submission lives or works.
\nA submission is accepted for publication after both reviewers have testified to its high substantive quality, in particular, its originality.
\nIf the conclusions of the two reviews diverge, the Editorial Board decides whether the article should be accepted for publication. In such a case the opinion of a member of the Scientific Board or a super-reviewer may also be referred to.
\nThe Editorial Board reserves the right to propose, on the basis of its own or the reviewers’ opinions, corrections to be introduced by the author on which will depend the final decision concerning publication.
\nA list of regular reviewers is published by the Editorial Board once a year on the journal’s website. The list is published in alphabetical order.
\nThe selected reviewers must guarantee independence as well as a lack of conflict of interests with the authors (no direct personal relationship, professional subordination and direct scholarly collaboration over the last two years preceding the writing of the review).
\nThe reviews are doubly anonymous: the reviewers and the authors do not know their identities (double-blind peer review procedure). Information about the reviewer can be declassified only in the case of a negative review or an article containing controversial elements, following the author’s request, if the reviewer in question agrees to reveal this information.
\nThe reviewers should take into account the substantive value of the articles under review, in particular their originality and scholarly value as well as whether they tackle new research problems. What is also evaluated is the formal side of each submission.
\nReviews are made in written form. Each review should contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article in question should or should not be accepted for publication. The review may contain a conclusion whereby the article may be accepted for publication after the author has fulfilled specific conditions (after introducing corrections or additions). The author responds to the review in writing.
\n