REVIEW PROCEDURE

Review procedure

Review procedures used by the editorial team of KULRB are in line with the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 2 December 2015 (Journal of Laws [Dz.U.] of 2015, item 2015) and review guidelines prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science brochure.

Detailed guidelines for the review procedure:

1. Texts sent for publication are subject to a preliminary assessment by the editorial team.
2. The editorial team applies the double blind review principle, according to which the reviewer and author do not know their identities.
3. Texts that are initially accepted are forwarded to two independent reviewers from outside the unit (in the case of texts in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers
   is affiliated to a foreign institution other than the nationality of the author of the work) who:
   a) are not members of the editorial team,
   b) are not affiliated with the same institution as the authors,
   c) are not in conflict of interest with the author,
   d) are not in professional relationship to authors,
   e) have not been in direct scientific cooperation with the authors in the last two years preceding the preparation of the reviews,
   f) do not remain in close personal relations to the authors (if the group of experts in a given field is very narrow, a deviation from the principles expressed in points b–f may be accepted),
   g) are competent in the field and have at least a doctoral degree and relevant scientific achievements.
4. The editorial team provides the potential reviewer with a description of the publication (title, number of characters or standard pages [1,800 characters]) and a summary of the text, leaving them complete freedom to decide whether to accept or reject the text for review, but suggesting a time limit to make the decision.
5. Reviewers during the review procedure are required to be confidential in their opinions on the reviewed text and may not use knowledge of it prior to its publication.
6. When ordering a review, the editorial team provide the reviewer with a review form, and the reviewer uses it to prepare a review. The review must end with a clear conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.
7. A reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the editorial team's e-mail address provided on the review form, and a hard copy with a handwritten signature, which is stored at the editorial team's office for 5 years.
8. The editorial team does not accept reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, including token reviews, dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, lacking the logical connection between content and conclusion, i.e. strongly critical reviews, but with a positive conclusion or the other way round.
9. The reviewer’s comments are forwarded to the author of the reviewed text. Reasonable and motivated conclusions presented in the review are binding on them. They must take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the text accordingly. Reviewers are entitled to re-review the corrected text.
10. If the author of the text does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, they are entitled to respond to the editorial team.
11. The decision to publish the text is taken by the Editor-in-Chief, with the support of the members of the Editorial Committee, on the basis of an analysis of the comments and conclusions included in the review together with any responses of the author of the text and the final version of the text provided by the author.
12. Once a year, the editorial team publishes an updated full list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.
13. Since 2012, the Editorial Team publishes on their website a list of texts that have received a positive scientific opinion and have been accepted for publication, but did not fit into any of the published or prepared issues.
14. Articles rejected by reviewers are archived in the journal’s editorial team's office for a five years.

 Ghostwriting firewall

On the basis of the recommendations prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the editorial team has implemented a ghostwritting firewall procedure:

1. The authors of the publication are asked to fully disclose the contribution of individual authors to the creation of the publication (including information on their affiliation and authorship of the concepts, assumptions, methods, etc. that were used in the preparation of the publication), while the main liability falls on the author submitting the article. In justified cases, the editorial team will seek information on sources of financing for the work created, the contribution of scientific and research institutions and other entities.
2. The editorial team warns against manifestations of scientific misconduct – including ghostwriting and guest authorship – declaring to unmask all of its detected cases and notify relevant entities (institutions employing authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.). All such manifestations of misconduct will be documented by the editorial team.
3. The superior rule regarding publication authorship:

Integrity in science is one of its qualitative foundations. Readers should be sure that the authors of the publication present the results of their work in a transparent, reliable and honest manner, regardless of whether they are its direct authors or have used the assistance of a specialised entity (natural or legal person). The disclosure of information on entities contributing to the publication (substantive, material, financial contribution, etc.), which is a manifestation of decency, should be the evidence of the ethical attitude of the researcher and the highest editorial standards.

Review form