PEER REVIEW

Review form
(in *doc - 15 KB; in *pdf - 60 KB)

The author's waiting time for a decision to approve the text is approximately two months. If the author has been obliged by the reviewer to make changes to the text, this period may be extended.

To evaluate an article, the editors appoint two independent reviewers who are not members of the editorial board, representatives of the academic circle of the journal’s publisher (The University of Silesia in Katowice), or members of the academic circle of the text’s author. 

Reviewing is conducted according to the double-blind standard; the reviews are submitted in writing, using the form available on the journal’s website. 

The reviewers’ opinion is binding, and is expressed using one of the following formulas: a) The article may be published in its current form. b) The article may be published after the required revisions have been made. c) The article is not recommended for publication. (This last opinion ought to be unbiased and sincere, supported by arguments that refer to the article’s content). 

The reviewed articles are treated as confidential matter, i.e., the reviewer must not publish or share his or her review, and the reviewer must not personally contact the author. The editorial board prepares the article in a manner which prevents the identity of the author from being revealed – directly or indirectly – to the reviewer (a procedure known as “anonymisation”). 

Reviewers submit reviews by mutually agreed upon deadlines. 

If, during the process, doubts arise concerning plagiarism or ghost authorship,  counter-plagiarism procedures are initiated, which involve collecting evidence and then requesting the author to respond to the suspicions. 

In cases when one of the editors is the author of an article, his or her function is taken over by another member of the editorial board, i.e., the editor-in-chief’s deputy or an issue editor. 

The final decision of whether to accept or reject an article is taken by the editor-in-chief after consulting the other members of the board. If an article has received one negative review, the editorial board appoints a third reviewer. 

The editor shares with the author the anonymous reviews, which contain the opinions of the reviewers as to whether the article should be accepted unconditionally, accepted conditionally (revision required), or rejected. The author must respond to reviews in writing, using the appropriate form available on the journal’s website; the author then makes the necessary revisions, to be approved by the editor responsible for the acceptance of the article.  

Along with the final version of the article, the author submits an author’s statement. The statement is made using the proper form and then sent to the secretary’s address. 

Once a year, the editorial board publishes a list of reviewers on the journal’s website.