REVIEW POLICY

The manuscript evaluation procedure consists of three principal decision-making stages: initial editorial screening, external peer review, and the editorial decision. The complete editorial workflow, including author revisions, professional English-language editing, and Online First publication, is described in Section 5.

1. EDITORIAL SCREENING

The Editorial Team performs a preliminary evaluation of each submitted manuscript to determine:

1. whether it falls within the thematic scope of the journal;
2. whether it presents a sufficiently clear and identifiable scholarly contribution;
3. whether it complies with the journal’s basic formal, editorial, linguistic, and ethical requirements.

The Editorial Team normally informs the authors about the result of the initial evaluation within one week.

At this stage, one of the following decisions is communicated:

1. the manuscript is qualified for external peer review;
2. the manuscript is returned to the authors with a request to complete or correct specific elements, such as formatting, manuscript structure, metadata, declarations, references, or language;
3. the manuscript is rejected without external peer review, for example because it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks an identifiable scholarly contribution, or does not meet the journal’s essential requirements.

A manuscript returned for formal or editorial correction is not considered to have entered the external peer-review stage. Further processing begins after the authors submit a corrected version that meets the requirements indicated by the Editorial Team.

2. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

Each manuscript qualified for external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external experts.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

1. their scholarly expertise in the subject of the manuscript;
2. their research experience and academic record;
3. the absence of any conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions;
4. their ability to provide an independent, reliable, and timely assessment.

The reviewers assess, in particular:

1. the originality and scholarly significance of the manuscript;
2. the clarity of the research problem and objectives;
3. the appropriateness of the theoretical framework, methodology, or analytical approach;
4. the coherence and quality of the argumentation;
5. the adequacy and reliability of the evidence, sources, or research material;
6. the relationship between the analysis and the conclusions;
7. the manuscript’s contribution to the fields covered by SEeB;
8. its compliance with relevant academic, ethical, and editorial standards.

As a rule, the external peer-review stage takes approximately eight weeks.

Reports and other materials of an informational or editorial nature are not normally subject to external peer review. Where such a submission presents original research findings, substantive scholarly analysis, or another contribution requiring academic evaluation, it is treated as a scholarly manuscript and undergoes the standard double-blind peer-review procedure involving at least two external reviewers.

3. EDITORIAL DECISION

Based on the external reviews, the Editorial Board decides whether to:

1. accept the manuscript for publication;
2. reject the manuscript;
3. return the manuscript to the authors for revision in accordance with the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.

Where revisions are required, the authors are expected to submit:

1. a revised version of the manuscript;
2. a response explaining how each reviewer’s and editor’s comment has been addressed;
3. a justification for any substantive comment that has not been incorporated.

After receiving the revised manuscript, the Editorial Board assesses the changes introduced and the authors’ responses. It may then:

1. accept the manuscript for publication;
2. request additional revisions;
3. return the manuscript for an additional round of external review;
4. reject the manuscript.

In the case of substantially divergent reviewer opinions, the Editorial Board may request an additional review from a third independent expert and make its decision on the basis of all reviews received.

The final decision is taken by the Editorial Board. Where a formal vote is required, the decision is adopted by an absolute majority of votes. In the event of an equal number of votes, the Editor-in-Chief has the casting vote.

Detailed information concerning the standard duration of the editorial process is provided in Section 5.

4. MANUSCRIPT QUALIFICATION AND REJECTION CRITERIA

Manuscripts submitted to SEeB are assessed principally during initial editorial screening and external peer review. The final publication decision takes into account the journal’s thematic profile, scientific and editorial standards, external reviews, and the authors’ response to the comments received.

4.1. Qualification for external peer review

A manuscript may be qualified for external peer review when it:

1. falls within the thematic scope of SEeB, as defined in the About section of the journal website;
2. presents an original and clearly identifiable scholarly contribution, such as new research findings, a theoretical or critical analysis, a review of the state of research, or a relevant case study;
3. where the manuscript is empirical, technical, or data-driven, places the study within a broader interpretative framework relevant to the journal’s humanistic profile;
4. presents a clearly formulated research problem, objective, theoretical framework, and appropriate methodological or analytical approach;
5. is written in comprehensible academic English and is sufficiently well organised to allow reliable scholarly evaluation;
6. complies with the journal’s essential formal and submission requirements, as set out in the official SEeB manuscript template and the Article Structure and Formatting section;
7. complies with the applicable principles of publication ethics, research integrity, and transparency, including the requirements set out in the journal’s Statements and the relevant UKSW publishing policies;
8. has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal.

4.2. Qualification for publication

Following external peer review, a manuscript may be accepted for publication when:

1. its research problem, objectives, theoretical framework, and scholarly contribution are clearly defined;
2. its methodology or analytical approach is appropriate, transparent, and adequately justified;
3. its argumentation is logically coherent and supported by relevant scholarly literature, evidence, sources, or analysis;
4. its conclusions follow from the material presented and do not overstate the findings;
5. it makes a meaningful and identifiable contribution to the fields covered by SEeB;
6. the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ and editors’ comments;
7. the revised manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, linguistic, formal, ethical, accessibility, and editorial standards.

The final decision is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of at least two independent external reviews and, where revisions have been requested, the revised manuscript and the authors’ response to the reviewers’ comments.

4.3. Grounds for rejection

A manuscript may be rejected before external peer review when it:

1. falls outside the thematic scope of SEeB as defined in the About section of the journal website;
2. lacks a sufficiently clear research problem, scholarly contribution, or broader interpretative dimension;
3. where it is primarily empirical, technical, descriptive, or data-driven, does not establish a meaningful connection with the journal’s humanistic profile;
4. substantially fails to comply with the journal’s formal or editorial requirements and the authors do not correct the deficiencies identified by the Editorial Team;
5. is written or structured in a manner that prevents reliable academic evaluation;
6. has been published previously, is simultaneously under consideration by another journal, or infringes authorship or copyright standards;
7. raises serious concerns regarding plagiarism, fabricated or unreliable references, data integrity, authorship, ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or undisclosed use of AI-assisted tools.

A manuscript may be rejected after external peer review when:

1. the reviewers identify fundamental theoretical, methodological, analytical, or evidential weaknesses;
2. the manuscript does not provide a sufficiently original or significant scholarly contribution;
3. the conclusions are not adequately supported by the research material, sources, evidence, or argumentation;
4. the identified deficiencies cannot reasonably be corrected through revision;
5. the authors fail to respond adequately to substantive comments made by the reviewers or editors;
6. an additional review confirms serious concerns regarding the scientific quality or integrity of the manuscript.

The Editorial Board may reject a manuscript at any stage if serious concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, authorship, data reliability, or copyright emerge.

5. EDITORIAL TIMELINE

For manuscripts submitted in full compliance with the formal, editorial, and ethical requirements of SEeB, the standard editorial process typically takes approximately 17 weeks (119 days) from submission to Online First publication.

The process consists of the following stages:

1. Initial editorial screening – up to 1 week (7 days)
The Editorial Team assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and complies with the formal, editorial, linguistic, and ethical requirements.

2. External peer review – approximately 8 weeks (56 days)
The manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

3. Editorial decision following peer review – up to 1 week (7 days)
On the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the manuscript, reject it, request revisions, or, where necessary, seek an additional external review.

4. Author revisions and final editorial assessment – up to 2 weeks (14 days)
Where revisions are required, the authors are normally given up to 14 days to revise the manuscript and submit a detailed response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. The Editorial Board then evaluates the revised manuscript and the authors’ responses and decides whether the manuscript can be accepted for publication, requires further revision or review, or should be rejected.

5. Professional English-language editing – up to 4 weeks (28 days)
To ensure the high linguistic quality of published materials, every accepted article undergoes professional English-language editing.

6. Final editorial preparation and Online First publication – up to 1 week (7 days)
After language editing, the Editorial Team completes the final editorial and pre-publication checks, assigns a DOI, and publishes the article in the Online First section of the journal’s website.

The estimated standard time from submission to Online First publication is approximately 17 weeks (119 days).

This timeframe applies to manuscripts that:

1. comply with the SEeB submission requirements at the time of submission;
2. undergo one round of external peer review;
3. are revised and resubmitted within the standard 14-day period.

If additional review or revision rounds are required, the editorial process may take longer.

If a manuscript does not meet the formal, editorial, linguistic, or ethical requirements at the time of submission, it is returned to the authors for correction before further processing. The time required to prepare and submit the corrected version depends on the authors and is not included in the 119-day timeframe.

Delays caused by authors, including late submission of revised manuscripts, incomplete responses to reviewers, delayed approval of language corrections, or delayed completion or correction of required Statements or submission documents, are not included in the standard editorial timeframe.

Assignment of an Online First article to a specific volume and issue may take place several months later, depending on the journal’s publication schedule. This does not affect the date of the article’s first online publication, its DOI, or its public availability.

6. IMPARTIALITY AND DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW

The Editorial Board takes appropriate measures to ensure the impartiality, independence, and integrity of the review process.

SEeB applies a double-blind peer-review model, which means that:

1. reviewers do not know the authors’ identities;
2. authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.

Before a manuscript is sent for external review, identifying information is removed from the file made available to reviewers. Authors are responsible for preparing the manuscript in a manner that does not reveal their identities within the main text, file properties, acknowledgments, or self-references.

Reviewers are selected to avoid conflicts of interest. In particular, the Editorial Board ensures, as far as reasonably possible, that there is no:

1. direct institutional dependence between the authors and reviewers;
2. hierarchical or supervisory relationship;
3. close personal or family relationship;
4. recent and substantial research collaboration;
5. financial, professional, or other interest that could affect the reviewer’s impartiality.

Reviewers are required to inform the Editorial Team of any actual or potential conflict of interest and decline the review where an independent assessment cannot be ensured.

An author submitting a manuscript may request that a specific person not be invited to review the manuscript. Such a request must be appropriately justified. The Editorial Board considers the request and, where the concerns are considered reasonable, excludes the indicated person from the review process.

The identity of reviewers is treated as confidential and is not disclosed to the authors or unauthorised third parties.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, any part of a manuscript, or their review reports to generative AI systems or other content-generation tools. Such tools must not be used to perform or support the scholarly evaluation of a manuscript. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the independent, human assessment expressed in their reports. Detailed rules are set out in the University’s AI Policy and the Guidelines for Reviewers.

7. ORIGINALITY CHECK

The SEeB Editorial Team checks the originality of all submitted manuscripts using the iThenticate system and the Polish Uniform Anti-Plagiarism System (JSA).

The originality check may include verification of:

1. similarities with previously published works;
2. unattributed or inadequately attributed text;
3. duplicate or redundant publication;
4. improper reuse of the authors’ own previously published material;
5. potentially fabricated, unreliable, or unverifiable references;
6. other indications of a possible breach of publication ethics.

A similarity report is not treated automatically as evidence of plagiarism. The Editorial Team evaluates the nature, extent, and context of the identified similarities.

Where serious concerns arise, the Editorial Team may:

1. request an explanation or correction from the authors;
2. suspend further processing of the manuscript;
3. reject the manuscript;
4. take other action consistent with recognised standards of publication ethics.

8. REVIEW FORMS

The standard review forms used by Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae are available for download:

1. Research article – review form (click to download)
2. Review article – review form (click to download)