Procedure of the scholary peer review of the paper

Review procedure for scientific articles published in scientific journals
published by the Publishing House of the Masovian State University in Płock

 

Legal basis

Art. 265 par. 9 point 2 of the Act of 20th June 2018 - Law on higher education and science (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 1668, with later amendments)

 

Chapter I
General provisions
  1. The Publishing House of the Masovian State University in Płock, hereinafter referred to as the Publishing House, implements a scientific review procedure, hereinafter referred to as the procedure.
  2. The procedure applies to every scientific article, published in scientific journals published by the Publishing House of the Masovian State University in Płock, hereinafter referred to as the articles.
  3. All parties involved in the publication process (publisher, editor of the scientific journal, reviewer and author) are obliged to comply with the established procedure of scientific review, taking into account the Principles of Publishing Ethics applicable at the Publishing House of the Masovian State University.

 

Chapter II
Review procedure
  1. The review procedure of the articles consists of two stages:
  • The first stage: internal evaluation - Editor in Chief of the journal makes an initial analysis of the article from the point of view of its compliance with the basic requirements of the scientific work and the substantive level and decides whether to reject the article or submit it for review. In case of rejection of the article, the Editor in Chief returns the text to the author, and in case of positive evaluation, he selects the reviewer(s) of the article using the double blind review rule;
  • The second stage: external evaluation - articles are reviewed by at least one expert in a given field, who is an independent researcher with at least a postdoctoral degree.
  1. The reviewer signs an appropriate agreement with the Mazovian Public University in Płock, which defines a high standard of reliability and thoroughness of the reviews, ensuring credibility of their conclusions.
  2. The Publishing House guarantees the candidate for a reviewer the freedom to decide whether to accept or reject the work for review.
  3. In order to ensure the impartiality of the evaluation, the reviewer receives an anonymised text. The Publishing House applies the rule of double blind review. If the reviewer's use of knowledge about the author's previous research is necessary for a reliable assessment of the text, the director of the publishing house/scientific editor makes a decision to apply the rule of single blind review. In such cases, the reviewer signs a declaration that there is no conflict of interests (attachment 1).
  4. The Publishing House guarantees independence of reviewers' opinions. It is considered unacceptable to probe the reviewer's opinion or to exert pressure on him, both in the period preceding the signing of the agreement for the preparation of the review and during its execution by the reviewer.
  5. The expert prepares an appropriate review (attachment 2) and submits it to the Publishing House. The review must be formulated in written form and must end with an unambiguous conclusion regarding:
    • accepting work without corrections;
    • accepting work after making the requested corrections;
    • rejecting the paper.
  6. The Publishing House may refuse to accept a review if it does not comply with the contract and the relevant legal regulations.
  7. In the case of positive review(s), the author implements potential corrections suggested by the reviewer(s). After the proposed monograph is modified, the author submits the final version of the publication to the Publishing House.
  8. In case of negative review(s) the paper is rejected.
  9. In case of one positive and one negative review an additional reviewer is appointed.