PEER REVIEW PROCESS

REVIEWING PROCESS

The principles of evaluation and reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication in the Journal Stylistyka

The reviewing procedures and principles which have been accepted by Stylistyka are compliant with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which are included in the document entitled “Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce” [Good practices in reviewing procedures in science] and Zasady etyki publikacyjnej [Principles of publishing ethics].

1. Each manuscript sent in for publication in Stylistyka is subject to evaluation as far as its substantive and formal standards are concerned (with respect to its compliance with Zasadami przygotowania tekstu do publikacji [Principles of preparation of manuscripts]). The manuscripts which are not prepared in accordance with the binding principles of formatting, lack in items of information (ORCID, affiliation, etc.) and/or contain “Bibliography” drawn improperly shall be returned to the Authors.
2. Original articles of the scientific-research character (included in the section of Articles) are subject to evaluation by two external reviewers; the remaining texts (submitted for publication in the Sections: Essay Reviews, Chronicle and Book Reviews, that is reviews-articles, book reviews, reports-articles, occasional or commemorative texts, etc.), are reviewed and accepted by the Editorial Board.
3. An initial assessment of the original scientific contribution is done by members of the Editorial Board and in the case the evaluation has been in the positive, the manuscript is sent to two independent Reviewers from outside the centre in which the Authors are employed. The article which has been evaluated in the negative at this stage is rejected. The Board inform the Author of their decision.
4. The Reviewers are selected by members of the Editorial Board, who are directed in their choice by the range and degree of competence held by each Reviewer, which correspond to the subject matter dealt with by the article, as well as by the criterion of Reviewer’s reliability (the Board collect their experiences of cooperation with individual Reviewers).
5. The Editorial Board make all necessary efforts to prevent a conflict of interest from arising between the Author/s and the Reviewers. A conflict of interests is understood as direct personal relationships (in particular marriage or kinship), relations of occupational dependence or direct cooperation. In the case the Reviewer suspects who the author of the manuscript presented to the former could be and expects there to arise a conflict of interests, they are obligated to notify the Board of this fact. The Editorial Board settles the doubts and takes appropriate actions.
6. The articles sent to external Reviewers are anonymized (the information on the Author/s is removed), which means that the Reviewer is not informed about who the author/s of the reviewed article is/are. In turn, the version of the relevant review which is sent to the Author/s has the data concerning the Reviewer removed. In this way there is applied the procedure of “double-blind review”, that is double anonymity.
7. The reviewing is carried out in a discreet, reliable manner and in compliance with the principle of ethics of reviewing accepted in scientific journals. Prior to the final publication of the article, the Reviewers must not use the results of the research work which are presented in the article being reviewed or disclose their evaluations to third parties.
8. It is the Reviewers’ recommendations that the publication of the given article in the yearly depends on. The Reviewer can propose one of the following:

1. a) to accept the manuscript in the form in which it was submitted;
2. b) to accept the manuscript for publication provided corrections/improvements have been made, without repeat reviewing;
3. c) to accept the manuscript for publication provided corrections/improvements have been made and repeat reviewing executed by the Reviewer;
4. d) not to accept the manuscript for publication.

1. The Reviewers make an evaluation of the manuscript and express their opinion according to the Formularz [Review form] prepared by Stylistyka. The negative opinion must be justified. The Reviewers can also introduce their comments into the manuscript (in the mode of e-reviewing), taking care not to reveal their identity.
2. The Editorial Board notify the Authors of the Reviewers’ decisions, passing to them the final decision on the acceptance of their manuscripts in the form submitted for publication or not acceptance of their manuscripts for publication.
3. In cases b) and c), when making corrections is recommended or indispensable, the Authors receive the Reviewers’ relevant comments, and also eventual comments of the Scientific Editor.
4. The Author who does not consent to make the suggested alterations can resign from having their manuscript accepted for publication in Stylistyka. Otherwise they are obliged to introduce the corrections (complement the manuscript, etc.) as indicated or to justify their decisions to hold on to their original standpoint. The new versions of articles and/or responses to the reviews are subject to assessment, and in the case the Reviewer or the Board still find them unsatisfactory, the procedure is repeated until the final decision of acceptance is made and the manuscript is ready for publication or does not qualify to be published in the columns of the Journal.
5. In the case the Author does not respond within one month, beginning with the day of being notified of the necessity of correcting their manuscripts, as proposed by the Reviewer/s and/or the Editorial Board, and does not send back any relevant information, it is accepted that the Author has resigned from having the article published in the given yearly issue of Stylistyka. In the situations described as a) and d) of Point 10, that is when the evaluations are unambiguously positive or negative, responding to the reviews or contacts with the Editorial Board are not required.
6. In the case the opinions are divergent, the Editorial Board of the Journal reserve to themselves the right to eventually ask a third Reviewer for their opinion. The ultimate decision on qualifying the manuscript for publication is taken by the Editorial Board.
7. The content of the reviews or opinions of the Board concerning the submitted manuscripts which are considered for publication are not revealed to any third parties, that is persons form outside the Editorial Board.
8. The names of the Reviewers are published exclusively in the digital version of the Journal. In view of the fact that Stylistyka is a yearly and the presentation of a list of the Reviewers’ names in the given year would mean releasing them to be publicly known, a general (and updated) list of names of the Reviewers cooperating with the Journal is published.

The process of reviewing scientific articles submitted for publication in Stylistyka serves to secure a high scientific level of the Journal. We wish to express our immense gratitude to the Reviewers – researchers themselves and respected experts – for their genuine engagement, dedication and disinterested taking on the role of Reviewers, who – at the same time – offer their kind support to the contributors, with the aim of working out the best possible versions of their scientific works. We cordially thank the Reviewers for this assistance and the Authors for the readiness to accept and take advantage of it.

„Stylistyka” – formularz recenzji