Peer review policy
Review Procedure
In order to maintain the academic and editorial quality of the journal, the editorial board of FACES of WAR places a strong emphasis on a reliable and transparent review process for texts submitted for publication.
We have adopted and adhere to publishing ethics principles in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Publishers, as well as the standards presented in the Ministry of Science and Higher Education’s document Good Practices in Reviewing Procedures in Science (Warsaw, 2011).
Guidelines for reviewing scientific articles submitted to the journal FACES of WAR:
1. The Editorial Board sends a preliminarily accepted manuscript for review, with information about the Author(s) removed.
2. The Editorial Board appoints two independent reviewers to assess each article. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in relevant fields and scientific disciplines.
3. Articles are reviewed using a double-blind review process, in which both the Author(s) and Reviewers remain anonymous.
4. There must be no conflict of interest between the Author(s) and the Reviewers. A reviewer cannot be someone who has a subordinate professional relationship with the author or who is in a direct personal relationship with the author (see: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).
5. Reviews are completed using the review form available electronically (download the Review Form template). Reviewers submit their completed and signed forms to the editorial office via email (PDF), by post, or directly to the office.
6. The review includes a recommendation to either accept the article for publication or reject it. The possible outcomes are: the work can be published in its current form / after revisions / the work is not suitable for publication.
7. Reviewers communicate only with the editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board. They are not allowed to disclose any details of the review, and the Editorial Board serves as the sole intermediary between the Reviewers and the Authors.
8. The peer review process is understood as an interaction and advisory relationship between the Author(s) and Reviewers – experts in the relevant research fields covered by the submitted text.
9. Two positive reviews are required for an article to proceed to the next stage of the publishing process.
10. In the case of conflicting reviews (one positive and one negative), the editor-in-chief is authorized to request a third review.
11. Reviewers' comments are passed on to the Author(s) of the reviewed article. The Author(s) must address the recommendations and appropriately revise the text within the specified timeframe.
12. Once the Author(s) have corrected any deficiencies identified by the Reviewers and the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board makes the final decision to either accept or reject the text for publication, which is then communicated to the Author(s). The text then undergoes language and editorial verification.
13. The names of Reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed until the review process is complete. A collective list of Reviewers collaborating on a given volume is made public after their consent is obtained. The collective list of Reviewers is available on the journal's website and in the printed volume.
14. Reviews are not published; their electronic copies are stored indefinitely in the editorial archive.
