Review process

  • Kategoria: Uncategorised
  • Odsłony: 1934
  1. Monographs published by the Publishing House of the State University of Applied Sciences in Włocławek (abbr. PUZ) are peer-reviewed by at least one reviewer, who is an independent researcher holding the degree of doctor habilitatus or a professorial title.

  2. The reviewer of monographs should be competent to assess publications in a given field.

  3. The reviewer is obliged to comprehensively read the reviewed work. In order to fairly evaluate the peer-reviewed paper, the highest standards of diligence and objectivity must be conducted.

  4. The prepared review should be substantive, logically coherent (it cannot be vague), and its conclusion should be clear and unequivocal. Each review ends with an unambiguous conclusion about: a) the possibility of publishing the work, b) The possibility of publishing the work, provide that the indicated corrections are introduced, c) the rejection of the work.

  5. The reviewer concludes an agreement with PUZ, which defines a high standard of reliability and depth of the review.

  6. The Publishing House of PUZ may not accept the review if it does not comply with the contract and applicable law.

  7. The reviewers are obliged to thoroughly determine their substantive competence and practical abilities of completing a review within the assigned time, and in case of doubts in this regard, refrain from the reviewing.

  8. The Publishing House of PUZ guarantees the independence and impartiality of reviewers' opinions.

  9. Polling the opinion of the reviewer or putting pressure on him/her is considered unacceptable, both in the period preceding the conclusion of the contract for the preparation of the review and during its accomplishment by the reviewer.
    In the case of a conflict of interest or circumstances indicating the possibility of such a conflict, the reviewer should withdraw from performing the task, informing the Publishing House about the reasons for the decision.

  10. The review process may only be undertaken by a person who has no relationship with the Author of the reviewed paper or the entity ordering the review that may affect the reliability and objectivity of the review and its credibility (e.g. professional, family, or interpersonal relationships, etc.).

  11. Within the review process, the principle of confidentiality is applied.

  12. If the reviews of two reviewers are contradictory, the final decision is up to the third reviewer.

  13. In a situation where the text is assessed by one reviewer and the review is negative, or by two reviewers and both reviews are negative, the text is rejected.

  14. In the case of texts written entirely in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers should be affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the Author of the publication.

  15. Performing the function of a reviewer is essentially free of charge. The agreement with the reviewer may provide for a fee for the preparation of the review.

  16. While developing the review, the reviewer's data are not disclosed to the Author of the monograph.

  17. In accordance with the commonly accepted publishing system, the names and surnames of the reviewers are placed on the editorial page of the monograph (textbook, academic book, etc.).

  18. The review is drawn up in a written form. It should consist of an informative part and an evaluation part.

    The informative part includes:

    - full list of references of the reviewed paper (author/authors, title),
    - classification of the reviewed paper according to its form and the field of knowledge,
    - the character of the publication (e.g. collective work, set of documents),
    - the main hypothesis and the final thesis of the reviewed paper,
    - selection of sources used by the Author,
    - the research method used in the paper,
    - originality of the approach to the topic.

    The evaluation part answers the questions:

    - Does the reviewer agree with the theses of the reviewed paper (why yes, why not)?
    - Whether and to what extent the paper constitutes a new approach to the problem?
    - Was the selection and the way of using the sources correct?
    - How can the Author's research abilities be assessed?

    The above principles comply with the set of "Good practices of review procedures in science" presented by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in 2011.