Peer review process
The Editorial Board of Studies and Analysis of Political Science subjects each submitted article to a thorough evaluation, which consists of two stages - a preliminary review and external reviews.
At each stage of the review process, the Author is obliged to take into account the opinion of the Editorial Board and the content of external reviews and apply appropriate amendments to the article. If the author disagrees with the review comments, the Editorial Board request that they address them in writing and justify their position.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-chief.
- Preliminary review (intra-editorial)
The submitted article is checked by the editor in terms of:
- compliance with the scientific profile of the journal;
- basic requirements of the scientific workshop;
- substantive level.
At this stage, the originality of the text is checked (we use the anti-plagiarism programme iThenticate).
An article can be submitted to the external review stage only when it receives a positive assessment as part of the preliminary review.
The standard time to prepare an initial review is one month.
- External reviews - double-blind review process
After the initial review phase is successfully completed, the article is submitted to two independent external reviewers. When submitting articles for external review, the editors observe the rule of double anonymity, the so-called double-blind review process (authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities).
Rules for the external review process:
- the affiliation of reviewers is different from the affiliation of the author of the article;
- affiliations of reviewers differ from each other;
- no reviewers from the Editorial Board;
- external reviewers evaluate the text, among other things, in terms of compatibility of the subject matter of the text with the profile of the writing, novelty of the research topic, language level, methodology and quality of the list of sources;
- reviewers complete a review on a dedicated review form;
- the reviewer determines the recommendation for the article, having the following options to choose from:
- the text is suitable for publication in its current form;
- the text is suitable for publication after amendments;
- the text requires significant amendments and re-evaluation;
- the text is not suitable for publication.
- in case of two divergent recommendations, an additional (third) reviewer is appointed;
- in case of suspicion of similarity of the reviewed article to other previously published content, reviewers are obliged to notify the editorial board;
- there is no reference to reviewers who may have a conflict of interest with the author.
The standard time of the external review process is about two months.
The list of reviewers cooperating with the Editorial Board is provided on the journal's website.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest means:
- family relations between the author of the text and the reviewer (kinship, marriage);
- scientific relations between the author of the text and the reviewer (scientific cooperation, maintaining close scientific contacts, suggesting the possibility of transferring information about scientific work between persons);
- professional relations between the author of the text and the reviewer (official subordination, work in the same scientific unit, professional dependence of another kind).
