Review procedure

  1. Papers submitted to are pre-verified by the editors, both in formal aspect and the merits. The papers that contain obvious errors (such as formatting violations, lack of references to literature cited, evidently fragmentary nature of the article) will be rejected at this stage.
  2. For each pre-verified paper, the editorial board calls at least two independent reviewers (not from Jagiellonian University and the insitution at which the authors are affiliated).
  3. Papers in foreign languages will be evaluated by at least one reviewer affiliated to a foreign institution other than the author of the reviewed work.
  4. Authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity (double blind review process).
  5. Papers will be evaluated in the following categories (1 – lowest rating, 5 – highest rating)
    • compliance with the subject of the magazine (weight 2)
    • substantive correctness (weight 3)
    • linguistic correctness (weight 1)
    • intelligibility (weight 1)
    • originality (weight 2)
    • knowledge of literature (weight 1)
    • overall assessment (weight 3)
  6. The final evaluation is determined as a weighted-average from the ratings for all categories. Rating of an individual category is determined as the average of reviewers’ ratings.
  7. The review may also contain comments, which are primarily justification of the rating in particular categories and remarks regarding correction of the noticed linguistic or substantial errors.
  8. The paper is accepted if the final evaluation is at least 4. If it is lower and reviewers’ ratings differ significantly, a third review is called and the weighted average is determined again. In this case the paper is accepted if the final average rating of all reviewers is at least 4. A paper can be accepted with a lower rating if at least two of three reviewers clearly indicate such possibility in comments.
  9. If the reviewers’ comments indicate a need for significant amendments, the authors are obliged to include them. If they refuse to do so, the paper might not be accepted, even if the final rating is 4 or higher.
  10. Names of the reviewers of individual publications/issues are not disclosed. The list of collaborating reviewers is made public annually.