Review Policy

The procedure for reviewing papers in EduAkcja journal complies with the instructions of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education presented in the guide Good practice in scientific review procedures published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Warsaw, 2011 [Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzowanych w nauce wydanym przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego, Warszawa 2011.].

  1. Each scientific article submitted by the authors for publishing in the journal is going to be reviewed and the authors submitting a paper should declare that they agree for the review process. The papers submitted are formally assessed by the editors and reviewed by specialists.
  2. Two independent reviewers who are specialists in the area of the subject of a paper are assigned. The selection of the reviewers is made by the scientific editor in consultation with the chief editor of the journal and the Programme Committee. The editors do not sign a formal contract with the reviewers and reviews are made on the non-profit basis. The editors have no impact on the work of the reviewers; they do not question the results of reviews or canvass.
  3. Reviews are made in written form and analysed according to the Review Form which allows to avoid ambiguity in the reviewer’s assessment and recommendation to accept or reject the paper. It also allows to add necessary comments. The reviewer who signs off the Review Form confirms that there is no conflict of interests at the same time with the following statement: I hereby declare that there is no conflict of interest that prevents an objective review.
  4. A review is a single-blind review, which means that the names of the authors are known to the reviewers but the names of the reviewers are not available for the authors. They get the results of review only.
  5. The decision on publishing the paper is made by the Editorial Board and it is based on two positive reviews. In the case of two negative reviews the paper is rejected. If the reviews are contradictory (one reviewer accepts and the other rejects a paper), the third reviewer is asked for the opinion and his assessment is decisive.
  6. Once a year a full list of reviewers who made reviews throughout the last calendar year is published on the journal website.
  7. Any contravention in the review procedure is deeply analysed by the Editorial Board, and in problematic cases the Programme Committee decides about the further procedure. This procedure and the Review Form are published on the website of the journal.