Rules of review

 

The texts submitted by the authors are reviewed in accordance with the rules applicable in scientific journals.

 

The peer-review process consists of two stages. In the first stage, the articles are qualified by the Editorial Board. In the second stage, they are directed to external review.

 

The peer-review process is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

 

Detailed procedure for reviewing articles:

1. At least two independent reviewers are appointed to evaluate each issue. The journal's reviewers are persons from outside the center in which the editors / editors-in-chief / s are affiliated.

​

2. The review process takes place according to the double-blind review process model, in which the authors of articles and reviewers do not know each other's identity. (download review form)

There is a review form prepared with check boxes, thanks to which you can clearly assess whether the text is suitable for printing in this form, requires minor changes or is not suitable for publication in a scientific journal. The innovativeness of thoughts, research workshop and the content of the text are also assessed. In addition to questions, the sheet allows for an open form in which reviewers can describe the strengths and weaknesses of the text, include suggestions and specify the assessment contained in the previous fields.

Reviewers may skip the worksheet and write an overall review that does, however, address the above issues.

 

3. Reviews are in writing and end with an unambiguous conclusion as to whether the article should be approved for publication or rejected. The decision on approval for publication is made by the evaluation of two reviewers. However, if the reviews are controversial (one clearly negative and the other - clearly positive), the article is sent for consultation to a third person who, like its predecessors, does not know the identity of the author of the text; nor does it know the content of previous reviews, but is informed about the contentious assessments of the text. In such a situation, the third, conclusive review decides whether to print.
Before the reviewer evaluation, the texts are subject to editorial evaluation.

 

4. Once a year, the Editorial Board will publish a list of cooperating reviewers on the journal's website.

 

​