RULES AND REVIEW PROCESS

Principles

The principles of reviewing accepted by the journal Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne comply with those of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/peerreview

• Submission of a manuscript for publication is tantamount to the Author’s (Authors’) consent for the work to be subject to the procedure and principles of reviewing.
• Manuscripts which have not been prepared in compliance with the formal requirements set in ‘Instruction for Authors’ shall not be accepted by the Editorial Board.
• The Editorial Board make an initial evaluation of the manuscript as regards its substantive and formal quality before sending it to two independent external Reviewers who are recognized specialists in the given field.
• The Reviewers are selected by the Board, with particular taking account of the suggestion from the Thematic Editor responsible for the given domain.
• If a Reviewer is not able to prepare a review, they are obliged to instantly inform the Board of the fact. Should a situation like this occur, the Board will choose another Reviewer.
• The reviews are prepared in the double-blind review process, meaning that the Reviewers as well as the Authors do not know each other’s identity.
• In case there occurs a conflict of interests, both the Authors and the Reviewers are obliged to notify the Board of the fact.
• The reviews are drawn in writing and include an unambiguous final conclusion regarding the acceptance of the work for further processing (printing) or its rejection. The review forms in Polish and in English are available on the Journal’s webpage, under the tag ‘Review Sheet’.
• Acceptance of the manuscript for publication is dependent on its high substantive standard recognized by both Reviewers. If one of the reviews is positive and the other negative, the Board may decide to continue the procedure of acceptance. In order to accomplish this, a third Reviewer can be called on to independently review the work again. In this case both the principle of confidence and double-blind anonymity are binding.
• The reason for rejecting the manuscript by a Reviewer can be, in particular, lack of originality of the work and its low scientific value.
• The Board forward the information concerning the reviews to the Author(s) and render it accessible for the latter to get acquainted with their content in order to be able to respond to the Reviewers’ opinions. The Contributors are requested to return the amended manuscripts within 14 (fourteen) days following their receipt of the reviews at the latest.
• The reviewing process is run observing the principle of confidentiality. The Reviewers must not use their knowledge of the manuscript or the results and information contained in it before the work is officially published.

• The Board do not reveal the names of the Reviewers of individual manuscripts. The Board publish an overall list of Referees who have been cooperating with the Journal in the given year.

• The Board publish on the Journal’s webpage the information on the percent number of manuscripts that have been rejected in the given year.
  
  Review Sheet
  Declaration of the lack of conflict of interests