Policy regarding peer review

The peer review process begins with the author submitting the scientific text to the editor and ends with the final decision on it, and is coordinated by the journal editor dedicated to a given process.

In the first stage, the editorial office performs a formal evaluation of the text, and then appoints two independent reviewers affiliated outside the research unit from which the author (s) of the article comes. The review process follows the double-blind review process model, in which the authors of articles and reviewers do not know each other’s identity.

Reviews are made in writing (the Editorial Board has an appropriate review form) and end with an unambiguous conclusion regarding the approval of the article for publication or its rejection.

All reviewers should meet the following requirements:

  • no conflict of interest with the authors (where a conflict of interest is considered to be the direct personal relationships between the reviewer and the author: second degree relationship, legal relationships, marriage, relationships of professional subordination or direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year of preparation reviews)
  • having at least a doctoral degree
  • showing current publications on a specific topic

 

In addition, they should:

  • have the necessary knowledge to assess the quality of a given article
  • uphold standards of professionalism and ethics
  • enjoy an unblemished reputation as a scientist

 

Additionally, they cannot be members of the editorial office or scientific council of the journal.

Reviewers who accept the invitation to review are requested to submit their review within 4 weeks. An extension of this period may be obtained upon request.

In order to improve the review process, employees of WUŁ are in constant contact with reviewers, authors and editors.

The reviewer’s comments are then forwarded to the author. The rational and motivated conclusions presented in the review are binding for the author. He is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the text. The changes introduced in the article should be described in detail or visible in the MS Word change tracking mode. Reviewers have the right to reverify the corrected text. If the author of the text does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, he has the right to present his editorial position in a polemical note (responses to reviews).

Revised versions of articles may be sent to reviewers depending on whether they want to see the current version.

The decision to publish the text is made by the editor-in-chief after consulting the editorial board and, possibly, the scientific council, on the basis of an analysis of comments and conclusions contained in the reviews, together with any polemics of the author of the text and the final version of the text provided by the author, checking:

  • proper selection of reviewers
  • adequacy of reviewers’ opinions and the author’s attitude to them<\li>
  • the overall scientific quality of the article

Reviewers are obliged to confidentiality in their opinions on the reviewed article and not to use the knowledge gained on this occasion before its publication.

The editor issues an unambiguous decision regarding the approval of the article for publication or its rejection.

According to the accepted practice, reviews of articles are prepared free of charge.

The names of the reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed. The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal is published on the journal’s website once a year.

 

Research data review process (data articles)

In the case of research data (data articles), reviewers primarily assess their compliance with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principle:

  • quality of the article and metadata
  • quality, completeness and reusability of data
  • the validity of the data set and its potential value for the advancement of science

Moreover, compliance with the ethical principles of the magazine, e.g. appropriate protection of personal data and image.

The collection of data itself is not subject to review and the author is responsible for its correctness.

The reviewing procedure complies with the recommendations of the booklet Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science (MNiSzW, Warsaw 2011) and the COPE standards.

https://publicationethics.org/guidance

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

https://publicationethics.org/files/ethical-problem-in-submitted-manuscript-cope-flowchart.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20Polish%20flowcharts.pdf