PEER REVIEW PROCESS
PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR THE SCIENTIFICAL ARTICLES SUBMITED TO "VOX PATRUM"
1. Review procedure for articles in “Vox Patrum” conforms to instructions included in the booklet by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education entitled “Good practices in review procedures in science”, Warsaw 2011 and to the principles of the publication ethics in accordance with the recommendations of COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics.
2. All authors, who send their articles for publication in this periodical, express their agreement to the review procedure.
3. All articles are first subjected to assessment by the editorial staff.
4. The next step involves double-blind review process by two reliable reviewers, who have at least a doctorate degree.
5. The received articles will not be sent to reviewers from the same institution as the authors or to persons, who may be in the conflict of interests with the author.
6. All articles are reviewed confidentially and anonymously.
7. All articles are given a review number, which identifies them in the successive stages of the editorial process to preserve the principle of mutual anonymity of a reviewer and an author of the article.
8. The review must contain a clear conclusion from the reviewer regarding the conditions for admitting the article or its rejection. Opinions that are clearly inadequate to the substantive and formal requirements of the scientific review, including reviews dominated by non-motivated critical opinions or non-motivated praise, and as well reviews devoid of a logical link between the content and the conclusion, i.e. very critical reviews, but with a positive conclusion or vice versa will not be taken into account
9. The Reviewer's decision is limited to the following possibilities:
- The article can be published without any changes.
- The article can be published after the changes suggested by the Reviewer.
- The article in its current form cannot be published. The text requires a major correction, which should take into account the comments of the Reviewer. After improvement, the article will require a re-review and decision to publish it.
- The article cannot be published. There are not also the real chances of its revision. The reviewer should justify his decision.
- The article could be published, but in another journal. The reviewer should motivate his decision.
10. The rational and motivated opinions presented in the review are binding for the author of the reviewed article. He is obliged to take into account the recommendations of reviewers and to correct the article in a suggested way. When a recommendation is issued to the author to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to re-verify the work.
11. The reviewer should alert the Editors of the possible similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.
12. The reviewer creates a review by logging in to OJS website and completing the electronic form.
13. The reviewer should make a review without undue delay. Usually, the deadline for the review is four weeks.
14. Reviewers may not use the knowledge about the work under review before its publication.
15. The final decision about publishing is made by the chief editor on the basis of the analysis of comments included in the review and also on the basis of the final version of the article sent by the author.
16. Once a year the editorial staff updates the periodical’s Internet site with the list of all reviewers involved in the review process.