Review procedure

To ensure the high scientific and editorial level of the journal, the Editorial Board attaches great importance to a sound and transparent review procedure for texts submitted for publication in RURAL PERIODICALS [ZESZYTY WIEJSKIE].

The journal has adopted and implements the principles of publishing ethics, consistent with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Publishers of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education presented in the study Good practices in review procedures in science, Warsaw 2011.

Rules for reviewing scientific articles submitted to the journal ZESZYTY WIEJSKIE:

1. After removing the identification data of the Author/Authors, the Editorial Board sends a pre-approved article for review.
2. Two independent reviewers are appointed to evaluate each article. Reviewers are appointed by the Editorial Board based on their current disciplines and research fields.
3. Articles are reviewed under a model in which the Author and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities (double-blind review process). The principle of no conflict of interest between the Author and Reviewers is observed. A reviewer cannot be a person who is in a relationship of professional subordination with the author, and one who was a direct scientific collaborator of the Author during the last two years preceding the preparation of the review. Furthermore, a reviewer cannot be a person who is in a direct personal relationship with the Author (see the Publishing Ethics and Best Practices tab).
4. In the case of a publication whose Author is from outside the borders of the Republic of Poland, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution based in a country other than the Republic of Poland and the country of origin of the Author of the publication.
5. Reviews are performed using a review form, available in electronic form (Review Sheet tab). Reviewers submit completed and hand-signed review forms to the Editorial Office electronically (PDF), by mail or directly to the Editor’s Office.
6. The review of the article is in writing and contains a clearly worded recommendation on whether to accept the article for publication or reject it. The following statements are used: the paper can be published in its present form / with minor changes / with significant changes; the paper is not suitable for publication.
7. Reviewers communicate exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board; they are not allowed to disclose any data relating to the review, while the Editorial Board mediates contact between Reviewers and Authors of texts on an exclusive basis.
8. The peer review procedure is understood as contact and advice on a specific submitted text, occurring between the Author and Reviewers – experts in the research fields to which the submitted text pertains.
9. The text is qualified for further stages of the publishing process if it receives two positive reviews. In contentious situations, another Reviewer is appointed.
10. The Reviewers’ comments are forwarded to the Author of the reviewed article. Within the prescribed period, he/she is obliged to consider the recommendations and modify the text accordingly.
11. After the Author has corrected any imperfections identified by the Reviewers and the Editorial Board, the Board makes the final decision to accept or reject the text for publication, of which it notifies the Author. Next, the text is subjected to linguistic and editorial verification.
12. In the case of a text that is not subject to the digital object identifier (DOI), such as a review, a report on a scientific conference (event) or a posthumous memoir, after the intra-editorial review and acceptance of the text for publication by the Editorial Board, it undergoes linguistic and editorial verification, carried out by the Editorial Board in consultation with the Author of the text.
13. The names of Reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed before the review procedure is completed. A compiled list of Reviewers involved in the creation of a given volume is made public, upon their consent. The compiled list of Reviewers of the publication is made available on the journal’s website and in the printed volume.
14. Reviews are not published; their paper copies are stored indefinitely in the archives of the Editorial Office.