Reviewing procedure for scientific articles in a journal
PERSPECTIVA LEGNICA THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL STUDIES
1. The procedure of reviewing articles follows the recommendations contained in the brochure of the Ministry of Science of Higher Education "Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science" (Warsaw 2011).
2. By submitting a manuscript for publication in the journal, the authors consent to the review process.
3. The submitted publications are first assessed by the Editorial Board.
4. Then the publications are reviewed by two reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board of the journal and have at least a doctoral degree.
5. The submitted works will not be sent to reviewers from the same institution where the Authors come and to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the Author. In special cases, the reviewer signs a declaration on the absence of a conflict of interest, while the conflict of interest is considered to be the direct personal relationships between the reviewer and the author (in particular, relationship to the second degree, marriage), relationships of professional subordination or direct scientific cooperation within the last two years preceding the review preparation year.
6. Papers are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double blind review process).
7. The manuscript is given an editorial number, identifying it at further stages of the publishing process.
8. Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge about the work before its publication.
9. The reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the editorial office's e-mail address provided on the review form and in a paper form with a handwritten signature, which is stored in the Editorial Office for a period of 5 years.
10. The prepared review contains an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of admitting the scientific article to publication or its rejection.
11. The final qualification for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of an analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.
12. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes on the website an updated full list of Reviewers with whom it cooperates.