PEER-REVIEW GUIDE

 The peer-review process aims at evaluating whether the quality of a submitted text meets the standards of our journal and academic publishing in general, and at determining whether its approach is innovative and original, its language clear and appropriate in terms of style, formality, and grammar, and its methodology properly applied and reflected in the recent findings in the field of research. All submissions that do not meet the above criteria should be rejected.

After initial evaluation, the editorial board appoints two reviewers per each received article, contacts them, and agrees the terms of their assessment. A reviewer is an expert or specialist – at least an assistant professor holding a PhD degree – who is related to neither the academic institution of the author nor the University of Silesia in Katowice, where our journal is published; however, we do insist on including mostly associate professors and full professors in our reviewing committee.

The reviewers are expected to fulfil a review form which can be found on our university and OJS websites. All reviews are double blind in order to ensure the anonymity of both parties and prevent a conflict of interest from taking place, such as:

• personal relationships (family, registered partnerships, personal conflicts and animosities);
• professional dependance;
• involvement of both parties in an ongoing grant or academic project;
• academic collaboration of both parties in the past, be it a supervision, grant project, or editorial work in the same board or committee in the five years preceding the review process.

Please note that reviewers are not allowed to publish their own articles in the issues containing the articles they evaluate. Confirmed cases of plagiarism or other academic misconduct prohibit one from reviewing or submitting an article in the journals published by the University of Silesia Press for the next five years.

Should the reviewers suspect that any of the abovementioned cases takes place or identify the authors using the mistakenly disclosed information (for instance, unedited intext references to the author’s publications or grants), they are obliged to contact the editorial board immediately. After investigating each case, the board decides upon the conflict on interest and reacts sufficiently, which in case of serious violation of the publishing ethics might result in terminating the contract with the reviewer (See: Attachment #1, University of Silesia Press Academic Committee Act #4 of 10 March 2020).

Review Form

The reviewers are bound to carefully fulfil a review form and state an unequivocal conclusion and recommendation. Each review should be based on detailed evaluation of the submission and avoid personal remarks, prejudices, and, especially, insulting comments. Violating any of these guidelines might result in terminating the contract with the reviewer and appointing another referee. Moreover, the review should focus on the content of the submitted manuscript exclusively: the correspondence with the topic of the issue and the journal, uniqueness and originality of the approach, significance for the field, linguistic level, metadata (whether they are complete or not), and points that have to be revised. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the shape of the revised manuscript after the review.

Accepting / Rejecting the Submission

After receiving a review form and recommendation, the editorial board decides whether to accept or reject the article. It is worth noting that the texts recommended for being published by the reviewers are not accepted automatically. Each decision is made by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board based on the current shape of the issue and the expected results of publication. Having received two reviews lacking recommendations for publication, the editorial board rejects the article; having received ambivalent reviews, one for and the other against publishing the submission, it is the editor-in-chief who decides upon the further steps of publication process with regard to the policy of the journal (these may include: appointing a third reviewer, or consulting the chair of the Academic Board or the members of University of Silesia Press Academic Committee).

Academic Misconduct and Unethical Behaviour

 Vehemently condemning any form of academic misconduct (plagiarising, self-plagiarising, falsifying data, or involving in ghostwriting or guest authorship), University of Silesia Press and the editorial boards of the journals published by it have accepted procedures in compliance with the guidelines set by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) (available at: https://publicationethics.org/), in order to guarantee high quality of publications. By no means do University of Silesia Press and the journals published by it intend to collaborate with the authors and reviewers who have violated the publishing ethics. Aside from notifying the employer of the author or reviewer, serious violation of the publication ethics would result in taking legal action and/or filing a civil lawsuit in case of plagiarism.