YPES Peer Review Process
"Yearbook of Polish European Studies"
The print copy is a reference (primary) copy.
- Members of the Editorial Board carry out initial assessment of the submitted texts, taking into account the YPES profile, current call for papers and editorial guidelines.
- After the preliminary editorial consideration, each article is subject to a double-blind peer-review procedure.
- The reviewis conducted by two independent, external referees, of whom at least one is affiliated in a country different than that of the Author.
- Eachreviewis in writing. It contains a conclusion whether the piece meets the objectives of the journal and of the current call for papers as well as suggestions and recommendations for revision by the Author if applicable.
- Referees are requested to address the following questions in their reviews: is the title of the article aligned with its contents? Is the structure of the article aligned with the title? Has the aim of the paper been clearly stated? Does the volume of the article correspond to the topic undertaken? Is the writing style adequate? Does the article contain sufficient bibliographic references? Have the tables, graphs and illustrations been prepared correctly and their use is sufficient to illustrate author’s points?
- Each review offers a final conclusion on the text: accept, revise and resubmit, or reject.
- The Author isnotified of acceptance, rejectionor need for revision within four to twelve weeks after the deadline for submission of contributors as announced in the call for papers.
- In case of conflicting referees’ opinions, the final decision is taken by the Editorial Board after seeking an advice from a selected member of the Advisory Board.
- Review presents the objective opinion of the referee, however the final decision on the acceptance of the submission is taken by the Editorial Board.
- The Editorial Board ensures that the review procedure follows as closely as possible.
The guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education ‘ Good practices of the review process’.