PEER REVIEW PROCESS

REVIEW PROCESS

1. The procedure for reviewing articles in the scientific journal "Theology in Poland" is consistent with the recommendations described in the brochure of the Ministry of Science of Higher Education "Good practices in review procedures in science", Warsaw 2011, and the Communication of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of June 2, 2015. on the criteria and procedure for evaluation of scientific journals.
2. Authors, sending their work for publication in the journal, agree to the review process.
3. Submitted texts are evaluated first by the Editorial Board.
4. Then, the texts of articles qualified for the evaluation process are submitted for review to two independent reviewers who have at least a doctoral degree.
5. Submitted papers are not sent to reviewers from the same scientific institution from which the authors come and to persons who may be in conflict of interests with the author. Conflict of interest is understood as work dependence (professional subordination), direct scientific cooperation (in the last two years preceding the year of preparing the review) and direct personal relations (relationship to the second degree, marriage) occurring between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text.
6. The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article (double-blind review process) is maintained.
7. The review must contain the unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of admission or rejection of the article. Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of the scientific review, including reviews dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, lacking the logical connection between content and conclusion, i.e. definitely critical reviews, but with a positive conclusion or vice versa will not be taken into account.
8. Reviewer's decision is limited to the following options:

- The article can be published without the necessity of making any changes.

- The article may be published after the correction suggested by the reviewer.

- The article in its current form cannot be published. The text requires serious correction, which should take into account the comments of the reviewer. After improvement, the article will require a re-review and decision about a publication.

- The article cannot be published. There is also no real chance of its revision.

- The article could be published but in another magazine.

9. Rational and motivated opinions presented in the review are binding on the author of the reviewed article. He must take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and improve the article in a certain way. When the author is obliged to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to re-review the work.
10. The reviewer should alert the Editorial Board about the possible similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.
11. The reviewer should make a review without undue delay. The usual time limit for making a review is four weeks.
12. Reviewers are obliged to the confidentiality of all information provided by the Editorial Board. Reviewers are not allowed to use knowledge about the work prior to its publication.
13. The final editor for qualifications is taken by the Editor-in-Chief based on the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the author. In case of discrepancies between two reviews, the final decision is also made by the Editor-in-Chief.
14. A list of reviewers appears in each issue of the journal.
15. According to custom, article reviews are prepared free of charge. Reviewers receive a free printed copy of the volume of the journal in which the text they reviewed appears.