Ostatni numer: / Last issue:
UG n.66

Reviewing rules

1. As a rule, every published text is subject to review procedures.
2. Submitting a text for review means that the publication will be evaluated in writing by at least one expert in the field relevant to the content of the publication, who is not a member of the editorial board.
3. Reviews are conducted using a double-blind review system, whereby the reviewer does not have access to the author's personal details. Similarly, the names of the reviewers of individual publications are not disclosed. Only a collective list of reviewers for a given issue of the Semi-Annual Journal is made public.
4. The reviewer is required to sign a declaration of no conflict of interest (e.g., family or personal relationships, professional subordination, work or scientific collaboration, etc.).
5. The review must end with an unambiguous conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.
6. In the absence of an unambiguously positive assessment of the text by the reviewer, the editorial board appoints a second reviewer representing the discipline relevant to the content of the submitted publication.
7. In order to maintain the principle of comparability of evaluation, in addition to evaluating the text, the reviewer completes a questionnaire with questions relating, among other things, to whether or not the publication meets the requirements expected of scientific texts.
8. After receiving a positive review, the publication is qualified for printing, provided that it meets the formal requirements (see the tab “Information for Authors”) and is accepted by the Editorial Board.
9. In the event of significant comments from the reviewer, the publication may be referred by the Editorial Board for correction or supplementation.