PEER REVIEW PROCESS
- By submitting a work for publication in Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL, the author consents to its review. The review process, between the submission date and the Editorial Team’s decision, takes around four months.
- All submissions are first evaluated by the Editorial Team and technical editors.
- Next, articles that have been qualified for review are sent to two independent reviewers who hold at least a PhD. Texts written in languages other than Polish are reviewed, if possible, by at least one reviewer affiliated with a foreign institution. Our Editorial Team may resolve, if necessary, to appoint other reviewers to evaluate a given article, in particular when the previous reviews do not align in their recommendations.
- Submissions are not given to reviewers affiliated with the author(s)’ institution or to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest is understood as institutional subordination, direct collaboration, or a personal relationship existing between the reviewer and the author of the work. Reviewers are not members of our Editorial Team (Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor, or Managing Editors). In cases where the number of specialists in a particular field is substantially small, an exception can be made to the above rule.
- Articles are subject to double-blind peer review process. Authors should prepare their texts in a way that prevents their identification.
- A review must state unambiguously on what conditions the reviewed text can be published or why it should be rejected. We will reject reviews that obviously fail to meet the substantive and formal requirements applicable to academic reviews, including those in which unwarranted criticism or praise prevail, without a logical link between the content and the conclusion.
The following aspects are considered when reviewing submissions:
– originality,
– content,
– source base,
– literature cited,
– academic expertise.
- The reviewer’s verdict may be one of the following:
– the article can be published without any substantive amendments,
– the article can be published with minor amendments,
– the article can be published with major amendments indicated by the reviewer,
– the article can be published, but it does not contribute anything new,
– the article cannot be published for reasons indicated by the referee.
- Justified opinions stated in a review are binding on the author of the reviewed submission and are necessary for the further processing of the text. The author is to take into account the referees’ recommendations and amend the text accordingly. Non-compliance with their recommendations must be justified by the author. When a recommendation is made for the author to introduce amendments, all reviewers have the right to re-examine the text.
- A reviewer should inform the Editorial Office about a possible similarity between the reviewed text and previously published content.
- The reviewer sends a review using an appropriate review form to the e-mail address of the Editorial Team or logs into the Journal’s website and fills in an online review form.
- As a rule, the time designated for a review is two weeks, but it may be extended if necessary.
- Reviewers are bound by confidentiality, so they are to keep all information they receive from the Editorial Team secret. Reviewers are not to use their knowledge about the reviewed work in any way, neither prior to or after its publication.
- The decision to publish (or reject) a manuscript is made by the Editorial Team based on the reviewers’ recommendations and/or the editors’ evaluation of the text after it has been reworked by the author in the light of the reviewers’ comments. If the editors diverge in their opinions, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Reviewers’ comments on both accepted and rejected articles are sent to the authors by the Editorial Team.
- The processing of a submission ends when the Editorial Team rejects or accepts it and notifies the author about this fact.
- Once a year, we publish on-line an updated list of all reviewers who collaborate with the Editorial Team. For a specific issue, a full list of reviewers is published in print and online.
