FOR REVIEWERS

THE REVIEWING PROCESS

The procedures and principles of reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication in Stylistyka are compliant with the recommendations of:

- Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE

- The Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which are contained in the document entitled “Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce” [Good practices in reviewing procedures in science] as well as with Zasady etyki publikacyjnej [Principles of publishing ethics].

1. Original scientific-research articles (included in Section Articles) are subject to two independent reviewing procedures executed by external Reviewers.
2. The Reviewers are selected by members of the Editorial Board, who are directed by the range and degree of the Reviewers’ competence as regards the thematic area dealt with in the submitted article, as well as by criteria of reviewing reliability (the Board collects experiences of cooperation with the Reviewers).
3. The Editorial Board do their utmost to avoid conflicts of interests between Authors and the Reviewers. A conflict of interests is understood here as direct personal relationships (in particular those of marriage or kinship), relations of occupational subordination or direct scientific cooperation. In the case where the Reviewer supposes who the author/s of the manuscript can be and realizes that there arises a conflict of interests, they are obliged to notify the Board of the fact. The Editorial Board will settle the doubts and will take appropriate measures to solve the problem.
4. The articles sent out to the external Reviewers for reviewing are anonymized (the information on the Author/s is removed, which means that the Reviewer is not informed of who the author/s of the manuscript is/are. In turn, the information concerning the Reviewer is removed from the version of the review that is passed to the Author/s. In this way the principles of the procedure of “double-blind review”, that is one of the double anonymity, are retained.
5. The Reviewer receives an enquiry from the Editorial Board if – on the basis of the attached title and abstract – they are ready to execute reviewing of the manuscript within the set time limit. When they have agreed to do so, the whole text of the manuscript and a review form are sent to them accordingly.
6. In the case where the Reviewer, upon getting acquainted with the whole article, realizes that they are not competent enough to make a proper assessment of the material, or has conceived the suspicion of a conflict of interest, they can resign from reviewing the manuscript and are obliged to inform the Editorial Board of the fact.
7. The Reviewer makes the evaluation of the manuscript sent to them in a reliable and discreet manner, one that is compliant with the principles of ethics of executing reviews in science. Before the publication of the article, the Reviewers must not make use of the results of the research work presented in the article/s they have reviewed; neither can they disclose the results of their evaluation to third parties. This concerns also the manuscripts which the Reviewers eventually refused to assess.
8. The Reviewers make an evaluation of the material and express their opinions following the relevant Formularz [Review form] which has been prepared for the purpose and is accepted by Stylistyka. The decision in the negative must be justified. The Reviewers are also allowed to enter their comments into the manuscript (in the digital mode of reviewing), being careful not to reveal their identity.
9. It is on the Reviewers recommendations that the publication of the article in the Journal depends on. The Reviewer can propose:
10. to accept the manuscript for publication in the form it was sent in,
11. to accept the manuscript for publication after making corrections, without the need to review the text again,
12. to accept the manuscript for publication upon making corrections and repeating the reviewing procedure,
13. not to accept the manuscript for publication.
14. In the case mentioned in item c) of Point 10 above, the Editorial Board passes the (anonymized) Reviewer’s comments to the Author/s, obligating the latter to introduce the suggested corrections and/or to respond to the reviews. The new version of the text (if the Author decides to provide one) will be sent to the Reviewer to make assessment of it again. This process can be repeated as long as the final decision is made to accept the text for publication or to reject it as not qualifying for publication
15. In the case where the Reviewers’ opinions are divergent, the Editorial Board of Stylistyka reserves to itself the right to eventually ask the opinion of a third Reviewer. The final decision regarding the acceptance of the manuscript for publication will be taken by the Board.
16. The content of the reviews as well as the opinions of the Editorial Board, concerning the articles considered for publication and undergoing the due process are not disclosed to persons from outside the Editorial Board.
17. The names of the Reviewers are published only in the electronic version of the Journal. In view of the fact that Stylistyka is a yearly and publication of the list of Reviewers in the given year would mean revealing their names it is only a general (and updated) list of Reviewers cooperating with the Journal which is published.

The process of reviewing scientific articles submitted for publication in Stylistyka serves to secure a high standard of this scientific Journal. The engagement of  Colleagues – research workers themselves – who kindly and disinterestedly take on the role of reviewers, makes at the same time an element of assistance to Authors in their working out the best possible versions of their publications. Therefore, we would like to express our utmost gratitude to the Reviewers for their support and to the contributing Authors – for their readiness to accept it.

Review form [download]