PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

Proces recenzji

1. By submitting a manuscript for publication in the Biblical Annals, the authors consent to the review process. The review process, from the moment the author submits the text to the decision by the Editorial Team, takes about 2 months.
2. The submitted texts are first assessed by the Editorial Team.
3. The articles qualified for the evaluation process are submitted for review by two independent reviewers.
4. Submitted texts are not sent to reviewers from the same research institution from which the authors come, and to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest is understood as professional dependence (professional subordination), direct scientific cooperation (in the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review) and direct personal relationships (relationship to the second degree, marriage) between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. Reviewers are also not members of the Editorial Team (i.e. the editor-in-chief, vice editor-in-chief and the managing editor). When the number of specialists in a particular field of biblical or other studies is very limited, there may be a departure from the mentioned principles.
5. The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article is maintained (double-blind peer review process). The review must contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of admitting the article to publication or its rejection. Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be taken into account, including reviews dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. reviews that are definitely critical but with a positive conclusion, or vice versa.
6. The reviewer’s decision is limited to the following options:
• The article can be published without additional corrections.
• The article can be published without additional correction, but it does not contain any new solutions or interpretations; space should be saved for another article.
• The article can be published after introducing the changes suggested by the reviewer.
• The article cannot be published in its present form. The text requires serious changes, which should take into account the comments of the reviewer. After the article is corrected, it will also require another review and a decision to publish it. The reviewer should specify the problems and indicate their solutions.
• The article cannot be published, there is no real chance of its revision. The reviewer should justify his / her decision.
• The article could be published, but in a different journal. The reviewer should justify his / her decision.

7. Rational and justified opinions presented in the review are binding for the author of the reviewed article. He / she is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the article. When the author is recommended to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to verify his / her work.
8. Criteria suggested to reviewers when evaluating articles:
   1. Positive review:
      • the paper contains original interpretations presented with a high degree of probability
      • the subject of the article relates to biblical studies and corresponds to the profile of the journal
      • the article is correctly written in terms of the applied method and the principles of scientific work
      • the article contains status quaestionis or presents the history of research on the given problem
      • the papers discussing the results of research on areas related to the Bible (e.g. archeology, history, anthropology, ancient Near Eastern literature, classical literature, philosophical hermeneutics, patristic or rabbinic literature, studies on religion and culture, theological studies) should demonstrate their influence on the interpretation and understanding of the biblical text.
   2. Returning the text for corrections (taking into account p. A):
      • insufficient bibliography and lack of discussion with scientific literature in the context of the analyzed issues
      • incomplete scientific article structure,
      • lack of terminological precision
      • unclear formulation of the research topic or problem
   3. Articles that need to be rejected (taking into account p. A and B):
      • lack of knowledge about the discussed issues
      • extreme lack of probability of the formulated hypothesis
      • lack of proportion between the importance of the topic under discussion and the length and complexity of the presentation
      • a style that is aggressively polemical with another article or book
9. The reviewer should notify the Editorial Team of the possible similarity between the reviewed article and any previously published texts.
10. The reviewer creates a review by logging in to his / her journal account and filling out an electronic form.
11. The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. Typically, the review deadline is three weeks.
12. Reviewers are obliged to keep all information provided by the Editorial Team confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge about the paper before its publication.
13. The decision on qualifying the text for publication is made by the Editor of the section to which the text was submitted, based on the reviews made. In the event of divergent opinions, the final decision qualifying the text for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and the final version of the article provided by the author.
14. Once a year, the Editorial Team publishes online an updated list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.