Review Procedures

All materials published in the „Intellectual Property Law Review” are subject to review by two external, independent reviewers (from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the author of the publication, as well as not otherwise related to him). These persons are selected from among the regular reviewers of the journal or appointed ad hoc for the review of specific texts. The selection of reviewers is made independently by the Editorial Board. The names of reviewers of materials published in a given year are posted on the journal's website and in individual issues of the journal. The Editorial Board does not charge for submitting material for review.

Before being sent for external review, submitted materials are subject to preliminary internal evaluation by the Editorial Board. Materials may be rejected by the Editorial Board already at the preliminary evaluation stage if:

  • do not meet the requirements provided for scientific publications, in particular, do not present the results of the research conducted, are not innovative or are not accompanied by a bibliography list;

  • address issues that do not correspond to the subject matter of the journal,

  • raise reasonable doubts about the originality of the study,

  • have previously been made available to the public,

  • create suspicion that plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting or guest authorship was committed in their creation.

Reviews of materials published in the "Intellectual Property Law Review" are based on the principle of the so-called double-blind review, which means that the author or authors of the study and the reviewers do not know each other's identities. Reviews are prepared on a standard form developed by the Editorial Board. Reviews are either in writing or in electronic form and include the reviewer's explicit conclusion on whether the text should be accepted for publication, whether corrections should be made before publication (minor or major), or whether the submitted paper should be rejected. The reviewers provide the authors with constructive comments, in a way that allows them to respond to the presented position. Authors respond to reviews in an author's statement submitted to the Editor or in separate statements addressed to the Editorial Board. Authors with legitimate objections to comments formulated by reviewers are entitled to present them to the editorial team. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the comment and suggestions of reviewers. In the case of significant corrections to the reviewed material, the Editorial Board may refer the text for re-review. In any case, the final decision to publish the material or reject it is made by the Editorial Board.

Reviewers shall pay attention to any perceived similarities of the reviewed study - in whole or in part - with works by other authors, or by the same author, previously made available to the public. In such a case, the Editorial Board assumes that there is a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism and takes appropriate action, not excluding notification of relevant institutions and state authorities.

After reviewing the material and making corrections to it, if any, the text is sent for linguistic and technical processing by an editor at the Publishing House of the University of Silesia in Katowice. Before publication, the author has the right to make the so-called author's correction.

Review form

Przegląd Prawa Własności Intelektualnej
[Intellectual Propoerty Law Review]

Peer Review Form

The review is made by filling in the review form inside the system. Due to the different frequency of logging out of the system depending on the tool used to connect and its configuration (computer, tablet, phone), for the sake of fluidity of the process, we comment on the completion of the review during a single login. For example - downloading the article and review requirements in the first login. In the next one completing the review form.

The review rules and review form are available in the RULES OF REVIEW.

Conclusion as to whether the paper should be published

Please choose one from below options:

 
 
 
 

A detailed analysis of the paper

[The reviewer fills out white spaces: please comment on the criteria in each category and award relevant point]

1. The subject matter of the paper [0-4 points]

a) does paper address novel and/or important issues/questions/topic?
b) was the issue subject to academic publications in Poland and/or internationally?
c) is the subject matter of the paper properly defined?
d) was the research question(s) adequately defined and stated?

The opinion and comments of the reviewer
[Category "The subject matter of the paper"] - text box

2. Methodology [0-6 points]

a) is the paper correct in terms of methodologies used?
b) was the adequate methodology chosen to address the research question(s) posed in the paper?
c) is the paper well organized in terms of structure?
d) is the reasoning clear
e) does paper use – in an exhaustive, adequate and convincing manner – sources and authorities (scholarly writing, case law, etc)?
f) does author use proper legal terminology?

The opinion and comments of the reviewer
[Category "Methodology"] - text box

2. Substance [0-6 points]

a) does paper constitute an original scientific work?
b) what is the value of the merits of the paper?
c) does paper offer useful conclusions for academia and/or legal practice?
d) are conclusions formulated in the paper rooted in the research carried out by the author, the authorities cited, and the analysis made?

The opinion and comments of the reviewer
[Category "Substance"] - text box

4. Technical aspects [0-4 points]

a) does the paper comply with the editorial requirements of the journal?
b) is the language of the paper clear and correct?
c) are sources and authorities properly cited?

The opinion and comments of the reviewer
[Category "Technical aspects"] - text box