This post is also available in: polski (Polish) Русский (Russian)

Reviewing procedure „Acta Polono-Ruthenica” (since 2012) 

  1. The Editorial Office makes a preliminary assessment of the submitted manuscripts with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal and compliance with the Guidelines for manuscript preparation.
  2. Subject editors (scientific) try to get the best-qualified reviewers in the field.
  3. After consulting with the Language Editor, the Editor-in-Chief selects the reviewers from the list of reviewers available on the journal’s website.
  4. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are appointed from an academic institution other than that of the Author’s.
  5. The list of cooperating reviewers will be published in the last issue published in a calendar year.
  6. The reviewer cannot be an author of the article in this issue for which he prepared a review.
  7. Texts written in languages other than Polish are reviewed by at least one reviewer affiliated to an institution from a different country than the Author.
  8. In the reviewing model neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities (double-blind review process).
  9. There can be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author of the publication, that might be due to: competition, collaboration and family relations or other dependency.
  10. The secretary of the journal sends articles to the reviewers and provides the date of the review established by the Editor-in-Chief.
  11.  The review has a written form and is concluded with an unambiguous statement as to whether the submission is to be accepted for publication or rejected.
  12. If the reviews do not require of the author to introduce substantive and editorial corrections, the Secretary of journal sends the article to the Publishing Editor.
  13. After review, the author will be informed of the results of the evaluation by the Secretary. When an article is deemed to require changes, the author will have an opportunity to improve it according to the reviewers’ suggestions.
  14. In case of disagreement with the reviewers, the author should submit a written reply to the reviewers’ comments.
  15. Only papers which have received two positive reviews are published.
  16. If one of the reviewers approve the paper for publication while the other did not, the final decision to qualify or reject the article belongs to the editor-in-chief.
  17. After the final publication decision has been made, the secretary of journal notifies the authors of the papers of the acceptance or rejection of the article.
  18. The Editor-in-Chief supervises the observance of reviewing procedure.
  19. All reviews are kept confidential by the Secretary of journal.