A PEER=REFEREE'S GUIDE

Peer Review Process

1. reviewers are associate and full professors
2. for the purpose of the evaluation of each submission at least two independent peer-referees, whose institutional affiliation is different from that of the Author, are invited,
3. Author or Authors of the submission are the Referees do not know their respective identities (double-blind review process); in special cases, in which the expertise needed precludes complete anonymity, the Referee  signs a declaration of the lack of the conflict of interest. The conflict of interest takes place in the case of direct personal relations between the Referee and the Author (especially kinship up to the twice-removed relatives level or marriage), professional hierarchical dependence or direct academic collaboration within two years preceeding the year of the preparation of the review
4. the written review includes the Referee's unequivocal conclusion concerning the conditions of the acceptance or the rejection of the sumbission for publication,
5. the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of the sumbission as well as the review form are available to the public in the journal's website.
6. in accordance with the principle of the double-blind reference, the names of the Referees of individual submission or issues of the journal are not disclosed; they are, however, listed in the journal's websites under the heading of "Er(r)go Peer Referees" in the Er(r)go homepage once a year in line with the regulations concerning the principles of journal ranking.

Referee's responsibilities

1. The peer referee shall provide the Editors with information that will allow them to make an informed decision concerning the publication of the material.
2. The peer referee shall provide the Author with relevant information allowing him or her to revise her contribution to meet the highest standards of academic quality or to improve their writing in the future.
3. The peer referee shall deliver his or her review promptly or shall notify the Editor about any circumstances that prevent him or her from the timely delivery of the review.
4. The peer referee shall be impartial in their evaluation of the submission.
5. The peer referee shall express his or her views clearly and unambiguously.
6. The peer referee shall never use ad-hominem arguments.
7. The peer referee shall not use the reference to strengthen their own academic or professional status.
8. The peer referee shall disclose to the Editor any conflict of interest (please, consult the  PLoS Policy to identify potential competing interests). The peer referee shall decline the reference upon the discovery of any conflict of interest and shall inform the Editor about such instances.
9. The peer referee shall treat received documents as confidential.
10. The referee is obliged to identify insufficient identification of sources or potential plagiarism, of which cases the referee shall notify the Editor.

Confidentiality
Until the moment of the admission of the article for publication, the editor and any editorial staff shall not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to any third party other than:

• corresponding Author
• peer referees
• members of the editorial team
• the publisher
• copyeditors, proofreaders, typesetters involved in the production of the journalas appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest 
(please, consult the  PLoS Policy to identify potential competing interests)

Unpublished original material submitted to the journal shall never be used by the Editor or any party privy to the material prior to its publication (listed in the "Confidentiality" section of this document above) for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.

FORMULARZ RECENZENCKI // DOUBLE-BLIND PEER-REFERENCE FORM

 Uprzejmie prosimy o wypełnienie wszystki pól poniższego formularza:

Please, fill in all of the fields of the evaluation form below:

 1) Jak ocenia Pan(i) ogólny poziom merytoryczny tekstu?

What is your assessment of the general quality of the submission? 

*

 wyróżniający / outstanding
 dobry / good
 do zaakceptowania po wprowadzeniu niezbędnych zmian / barely acceptable, to be modified and resubmitted
 słaby / poor, unacceptable

 2) Jak ocenia Pan(i) poziom językowy i stylistyczny tekstu? Jak ocenia Pan(i) poziom komunikatywności tekstu?

What is your assessment of the style and intellegibility/comprehensibility of the submission?

*

  Rejestr oraz stylistyka adekwatne - tekst nadaje się do publikacji w "Er(r)go" lub innym - podobnym - czasopiśmie. / Style and register adequate for publication in Er(r)go or other high-ranking journal.
 Tekst napisany językiem zbyt specjalistycznym, trudnym w odbiorze dla czytelnika spoza wąsko określonej dziedziny. / Style is too difficult for readers who are not specialists in the field covered by the submission.
 Styl zbyt publicystyczny, z dużą ilością uproszczeń myślowych, itp. / Style is too colloquial, too many simplifications, etc.
 Styl idiosynkratyczny, utrudniający jasne przekazanie treści, mało komunikatywny. / Style is idiosyncratic and thus makes the submission hard to understand (e.g.: language is too flowery, syntax is too complex, etc.)

 3) Czy przedstawiony do recenzji tekst wnosi wkład w rozwój badań naukowych nad zagadnieniami omawianymi w tekście?

Does the submission truly contribute to the development of the field of research it addresses?

  Tak, w znaczym stopniu. / Yes, significantly.
 Tak, lecz w niewielkim stopniu. / Yes, but to a limited extent.
 Raczej nie. / Not really.
 Tekst jest wtórny. / The text is derivative, does not contribute any new knowledge, lacks originality.

 4) Jakie grono odbiorców może zainteresować tekst przedstawiony tu do recenzji?

What, in your opinion, would be the profile of the readers interested in the submission?

*

  szerokie - humanistów zajmujących się różnymi dziedzinami / a broad spectrum of humanities scholars, their discipline notwithstanding
 wąskie - wyłącznie specjalistów reprezentujących dziedzinę, której dotyczy tekst / a only specialists in the field covered by the submission
 trudno powiedzieć / hard to say

 8) W podsumowaniu prosimy o jednoznaczną rekomendację:

Please, state your non-ambivalent recommendation:

*

  Tekst nadaje się do publikacji. / I recommend the text for publication in Er(r)go.
 Tekst wymaga nieznacznych rewizji i korekt, po wprowadzeniu których będzie nadawał sie do publikacji. / The text requires some revisions: once the corrections have been implemented, I will recommend the text for publication.
 Tekst nie nadaje się do publikacji. / The text should be rejected.

 7) Jeżeli tekst wymaga nieznacznych rewizji, to jakie elementy tekstu należy skorygować, zrewidować, poprawić, uzupełnić?

If the submission requires small revisions, then which elements need to be corrected, revised, complemented, etc.? 

*