1. The Editorial Team reviews the manuscript for content (compliance with the journal’s profile) and formal criteria (academic standards, linguistic correctness) within 30 days following its submission. The Editorial Team makes one of the following decisions:

     a) accepts the manuscript and sends it for peer review;

     b) requests a revised manuscript;

     c) rejects the manuscript.

2. If the manuscript is rejected, the Editorial Team informs the Author about the reasons for rejection.

3. The volume Editor, appointed by the Editorial Team, is responsible for the entire peer review process. The Editor prepares the manuscript for review by removing any references to the identity of the Author.

4. The Editor appoints two independent Reviewers. To be selected, the Reviewer must have expertise in the topic of the manuscript and cannot have any conflict of interest resulting from a personal, professional or any other relationship with the Author (including kinship, institutional affiliation, reporting relationship, collaborative projects).

5. Reviews are prepared in line with double-blind review guidelines. The Editorial Team ensures that the identities of both Reviewers and Author are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

6. The following review criteria are applied: content (originality, methodological correctness) and formal (form and linguistic aspects, transparency of arguments). The Reviewer is emailed a review form and requested to complete it in a timely manner.

7. The Reviewer declares that to the best of their knowledge, there is no potential conflict of interest with the Author.

8. Reviews are concluded with an overall recommendation:

     a) to accept the manuscript without any changes;

     b) to accept the manuscript once the Author makes minor revisions (e.g. linguistic corrections, additions, clarifications etc.);

     c) to accept the manuscript if the Author makes major revisions (e.g. the inclusion of additional literature, change of structure);

     d) to reject the manuscript.

9. The Editor reads the reviews and forwards them to the Author with a request to respond to the comments made by the Reviewers and revise the manuscript.

10. The Editor evaluates whether the revised manuscript addresses the Reviewers' comments and is acceptable for publication. However, in cases where the Author’s compliance with the recommendations is in question, the manuscript can be returned to the original Reviewers for confirmation.

11. If the Reviewer deems the revisions insufficient, the Editor sends the manuscript back to the Author for further revisions.

12. The Author of the manuscript has the right to reject the comments from the Reviewers on the condition that they explain their reasons for not considering them. In this case, the Editor sends the Author’s response to the Reviewer, asking for their acceptance for publication. If the Reviewer does not accept the Author’s response, the final decision is made by the Editorial Team.

13. If the reviews are mixed with one positive and one negative, the Editor appoints a third Reviewer. In special cases, the Editor may obtain advice from the Editorial Team.

14. We recommend that the Reviewers refer to the Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers developed by COPE.

15. The list of reviewers is published on the Journal’s website and in the first issue of the consecutive annual.

 

List of Reviewers (2023):

Krzysztof Abriszewski (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń) 

Maja Brzozowska-Brywczyńska (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Anna Chromik (Uniwersytet KEN w Krakowie)

Marcin Cieński (University of Wrocław)

Martyna Deszczyńska (Collegium Verum)

Maja Dobiasz-Krysiak (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)

Maciej Duda (University of Szczecin)

Mariusz Filip (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Jerzy Grad  (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Piotr Juskowiak  (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Małgorzata Kądziela (University of Silesia in Katowice)

Leszek Koczanowicz (SWPS University)

Paweł Korobczak (University of Wrocław)

Ewa Kosowska (University of Silesia in Katowice)

Izabela Kowalczyk (Magdalena Abakanowicz University of the Arts Poznań)

Iwona Kurz (University of Warsaw)

Jarosław Ławski (University of Białystok)

Krzysztof Łukasiewicz (University of Wrocław)

Bartosz Małczyński (Jan Długosz University in Częstochowa)

Krzysztof Moraczewski (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Artur Mordka (University of Rzeszów)

Włodzimierz Pessel (University of Warsaw)

Kacper Pobłocki (University of Warsaw)

Zbigniew Przychodniak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Michał Rauszer (University of Warsaw)

Agnieszka Rejniak-Majewska (University of Łódź)

Karolina Rosiejka-Magierowska (Magdalena Abakanowicz University of the Arts Poznań)

Maria Rowińska-Szczepaniak (University of Opole)

Justyna Ryczek (Magdalena Abakanowicz University of the Arts Poznań)

Mateusz Salwa (University of Warsaw)

Agata Siwiak (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Agata Sulikowska-Dejena (University of Rzeszów)

Izolda Topp-Wójtowicz (University of Wrocław)

Marzenna Wiśniewska (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)

Violetta Wróblewska (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)

Magdalena Zamorska (University of Wrocław)

Karolina Zychowicz (University of Zielona Góra)

Tomasz Żaglewski (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań)

Contact

Indexation

• DOAJ
• EBSCO
• Erih Plus
• CEEOL
• The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities
• Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA, ProQuest)