Reviewing rules

REVIEWING RULES IN ‟COMPARISONS”

1. Only articles that have been previously qualified by the editorship of ‟Comparisons” are reviewed.

2. The reviewing process is supervised by the editor-in-chief who appoints two Polish or foreign reviewers - specialists in the particular area - who review the article independently.

3. The reviewers are appointed by the editor-in-chief from outside the institutions in which the journal is based and the author of the paper is employed.

4. The reviewers decide whether to qualify the paper for publishing on the basis of the reviewing questionnaire available at www.porownania.amu.edu.pl.

5. Each review is in writing and has to include a definite statement of acceptance or rejection for publication.

6. Each review is sent to the editorship of ‟Comparisons” electronically and in paper with a hand-written signature of the reviewer.

7. If a paper receives two mutually exclusive reviews (one of the reviewers decides to reject the paper), a third reviewer is appointed. The decision of the third reviewer is final.

8. The author of the texts and the reviewers do not know each other’s identities (double-blind review process).

9. The editorship discloses the reviews to the authors and - if the reviewer(s) require an answer - the authors of the paper write a reply, which the editor then sends to the reivewer(s).

10. The list of reviewers of ‟Comparisons” is published in each issue of the journal and on the journal’s webpage.

11. The editorship regards ghostwriting and guest authorship as blatant manifestations of lack of scientific honesty. All instances of such practices will be publicly exposed and  brought to the attention of the institutions that employ the authors, scientific associations, institutions which finance science and the appropriate ministry.