REVIEW  POLICY

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

1. EDITORIAL SCREENING

The Editorial Board performs a preliminary evaluation of each submitted article to check:

1) whether it fits the profile of the journal; and

2) whether the basic formal requirements are met.

During the academic year, the Editorial Board informs the author about the result of this initial evaluation within one week. At this stage, one of the following decisions is communicated:

1) the article is accepted for the next stages of evaluation and will be sent for external peer review;

2) the author is asked to complete or correct specific elements (for example formatting, missing statements, incomplete metadata);

3) the article is rejected at this stage (for example because it is outside the scope of the journal or does not meet basic formal standards).

2. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

At least two independent external experts make a substantive and formal evaluation of the submitted article. As a rule, this process takes about two months. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise and the absence of any conflict of interest.

3. EDITORIAL DECISION

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

1) accept the article for publication;

2) reject the article; or

3) send the article back to the author for revision in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.

In the case of radically different expert opinions, the Editorial Board may request an additional review from a third expert and then decide on the qualification of the article on the basis of all reviews.

This decision is taken in a formal vote, by an absolute majority of votes. In the event of an equal number of votes, the vote of the Editor-in-Chief prevails.

The Editorial Board takes the final decision on the publication of the article within two weeks from receiving the last review and informs the author about this decision.

Impartiality and double-blind review

The Editorial Board takes appropriate measures to ensure the highest possible impartiality of the review process. The journal applies a double-blind review model, which means that:

1) reviewers do not know the authors’ identities; and

2) authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.

The Editorial Board also ensures that there is no hierarchical, family or close personal (friendship) relationship between authors and reviewers.

In addition, 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.

Originality check

The SEeB editors check the originality of all submitted articles using the iThenticate system and the JSA (Uniform Anti-Plagiarism System) introduced by the Ministry of Education and Science as obligatory for all scientific institutions in Poland.

Review form

The standard review form used by Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae is available for download on the journal’s website.