REVIEW POLICY

The article qualification process is based on a three-step evaluation procedure.

1. EDITORIAL SCREENING

• Each material submitted for publication in “Prawo Kanoniczne” undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Board.
• During the internal evaluation, the following aspects are assesed:
  • the alignment of the submitted material's subject matter with the thematic profile of the journal.
  • compliance with formal requirements and the completeness of the submitted material.
• In evaluating the potential for publication in “Prawo Kanoniczne”, the Editorial Board may consult members of the Scientific Council.
• In the case of a preliminary negative assessment due to the material's non-compliance with the thematic profile of “Prawo Kanoniczne” or a lack of originality, the material is rejected.
• If the preliminary negative assessment is due to failure to meet formal requirements, the author may amend the submitted material and resubmit it to the Editorial Board.
• The author is informed by the Editorial Board of the preliminary decision regarding the submitted material within 10 days.

2. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

• In the case of a positive preliminary evaluation, the submitted material is forwarded to two independent specialist reviewers, who are not employees of the institution to which the author is affiliated.
• The Editorial Board also ensures that there is no hierarchical, family or close personal (friendship) relationship between authors and reviewers.
• Additionally, an author submitting an article may request that a specific person should not be invited to review the text, providing an appropriate justification. The Editorial Board considers such requests and, where justified, excludes the indicated person from the review process.
• Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and the absence of any conflict of interest.
• The selection of reviewers is decided by the Editorial Board, which may consult members of the Scientific Council in this regard.
• The Editorial Board takes appropriate measures to ensure the greatest possible impartiality in the review process. The journal applies a double-blind review model, which means that:
  • reviewers do not know the authors’ identities,
  • authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
• Each reviewer prepares a written review of the submitted material in accordance with the PK review form available on the journal's website and submits it to the Editorial Board.
• In the case of significantly divergent opinions of reviewers or other substantive doubts, a third reviewer may be appointed.

3. EDITORIAL DECISION

• After collecting all the reviews, the Editorial Board will make one of the following decisions:
  • accepting the material for publication, if the reviews agree in this respect;
  • returning the material to the author for corrections suggested in the reviews;
  • rejecting the material, if the reviews agree on this point or if the reviewers suggest changes so extensive that, in the Editorial Board's opinion, incorporating them would require the preparation of a new submission.
• If the reviewers have requested to review the corrected text, the material will be sent for re-review. Otherwise, the Editorial Board will assess the adequacy of the amendments made by the author and the validity of any justified disagreement with some of them.
• In case of doubts, the editors will re-consult the original reviewers or appoint a third reviewer.
• The submitted material is accepted for publication when the reviewers have no objections, the suggested amendments have been incorporated, or the author has convincingly justified their disagreement with some of the amendments. Otherwise, the material is rejected.

Review form