Peer review procedure

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts for our quarterlies is consistent with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, described in the booklet “Good practice in reviewing procedures in science” published by the MS&HE (Warsaw 2011) - see Good Practice.

By submitting a manuscript to the Editors the Author/Authors agrees/agree to the launching of the review procedure for the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief together with Subject Editors select at least two Reviewers from among the authorities in the given field. The Editors adhere to the principle of double blind review, according to which the Reviewer and the Author do not know their identities. They must also be competent in the given field, hold at least the PhD degree and have proper scholarly achievements to their credit and an impeccable reputation.

Because of the narrow circle of specialists in some fields, departures from the principle of independent review, i.e. appointing specialists from the Publisher staff, are admissible. The selected Reviewers must guarantee independence from and no conflict of interests (no direct personal relation, no professional subordination and no direct scientific collaboration within the last two years prior to writing the review) with the Authors of the submitted manuscripts. In that case Reviewer sign a declaration that there is no conflict of interests between him and Author of the manuscript.

The Editors pass on the full text of the manuscript submitted for publication, together with a review form, to the Reviewer. The process of review must end with an explicit statement declaring that the manuscript has been accepted for publication or rejected. Two favourable reviews are required for the manuscript to qualify for the next stages in the publishing process. In the case of contentious issues, another Reviewer is appointed.

The Reviewers pass on (electronically, by mail or directly to the Editorial Section) the filled in review forms to the Editors.

The Reviewer’s comments are send to the Author of the reviewed manuscript. The latter is obligated to follow the recommendations and appropriately revise the text. The Reviewers have the right to check the revised text.

If the Author of the text does not agree with the Reviewer’s conclusions, he/she has the right to express his/her opinion on the conclusions to the Editors.

A decision whether to publish or not the text is taken by the Editor-in-Chief aided by the members of the Editorial Council, on the basis of an analysis of the comments contained in the review, the Author’s replies (if any) and the delivered final version of the text. According to the adopted custom, reviews of manuscripts are done free of charge.

The Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge contained in the manuscript before its publication.

Each manuscript presenting the results of empirical studies also gets to the Statistical Editor and to the Language Editor.