Description of the review process

• Each material submitted for publication in the SPCh is the first subject to a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Board.
• During the internal evaluation, the following are determined:
  • compliance of the issues of the material submitted for publication with the thematic profile of the SPCh;
  • meeting the formal requirements and completeness of the delivered material.
• The SPCh editors check the originality of the submitted articles using iThenticate system.
• When assessing the possibility of publishing in the SPCh, the Editorial Board may consult Advisory Board members.
• In the case of a preliminary negative assessment resulting from the non-compliance of the material submitted for publication with the thematic profile of the SPCh or lack of originality, the material is rejected.
• In the event of an initial negative assessment resulting from failure to meet formal requirements, the author may supplement the submitted material and send it again to the Editorial Board.
• The author is informed by the Editorial Board about the initial decision concerning the submitted material up to 10 days.
• In the case of an initial positive opinion, the submitted material is forwarded to two independent specialist-reviewers from outside the employees of the unit to which the author of the material is affiliated. The Editorial Board takes appropriate measures to ensure the highest possible impartiality of the review process, i.e. reviewers do not know the authors’ personal details and vice versa (double-blind review). There are also no family connections between them. In addition, an author submitting an article may request the Editorial Board to exclude from the evaluating process a person indicated by him/her providing appropriate justification.
• The Editors decide about the selection of reviewers, which may consult members of the Advisory Board.
• Each reviewer prepares a written review of the submitted material in accordance with the SPCh review form available on the journal's website and submits it to the Editorial Board.
• In the case of significantly divergent opinions of reviewers, a third reviewer is appointed.
• After collecting all the reviews, the Editorial Board decides on one of the following decisions:
  • accepting the material for publication, if the reviews agree in this respect
  • reference to the author to corrections suggested in reviews
  • rejection of the material, if the reviews agree in this respect or when the reviewers suggest changes that go so far that, in the opinion of the Editorial Board, taking them into account would result in the need to prepare new material.
• If the reviewers asked to read the corrected text, the text is sent for re-review. Otherwise, the adequacy of the amendments introduced by the author and the legitimacy of any justified disagreement with some of them is assessed by the Editorial Board.
• In case of doubts, the Editorial Board shall again consult the original reviewers.
• The submitted material is accepted for publication when reviewers have no negative comments, the suggested amendments have been incorporated or the author has convincingly justified his disagreement with some of them. Otherwise, the material is rejected.

See also Author Guidelines

Review forms available to download:

• Review form for an article
• Re-review form for an article
• Review form for a polemical article
• Review form for a scientific discussion
• Review form for a scientific review
• Review form for a report