The reviewing procedure
The reviewing procedure in the journal Studia Translatorica takes into account the recommendations of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, included in the document Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce [Eng. Good practices in review procedures in science], Warsaw 2011.
By submitting manuscripts for publication in the journal Studia Translatorica, the authors agree for the manuscripts to undergo the reviewing procedure. The Editorial Staff performs an initial review of the submissions. The Editorial Staff reserves the right to decline sending a manuscript to a reviewer if the manuscript does not meet academic and scientific standards.
In the initial review, the following aspects will be taken into consideration:
- compliance of the manuscript with the profile of the journal,
- original contribution of the author to the approached issues,
- compliance of the manuscript with the formal requirements of the journal.
After the initial review of the manuscript, the Editorial Staff appoints two independent reviewers, who are not part of the Editorial Staff of the current issue of the journal.
Anonymity and Confidentiality
The reviewing procedure takes place in compliance with the preservation of the anonymity and confidentiality by working in a double-blind review mode.
The reviewers evaluating the manuscripts have to represent different institutes than the authors of the evaluated manuscripts. The reviewers cannot be involved in a conflict of interests with the authors.
The authors and the reviewers must not know each other’s identity.
The surnames of reviewers for each issue are not revealed; the journal publicizes the list with the cooperating reviewers once a year. The list of the reviewers is published in every issue of the journal and on the website of the journal.
Review
The reviewer evaluates the research, the way the research issued were formulated, the choice of the research method and the used sources, the formal structure of the text as well as grammatical correctness. If necessary, the reviewer adds remarks and commentaries aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript.
The review has a written form. The evaluation should be honest, objective, unbiased, properly reasoned and end with a clear statement of acceptance for publication, an acceptance for publication after introducing proper changes or rejection.
In the case of clearly diverging evaluations the Editorial Staff appoints a third reviewer and consults the manuscripts and the reviews with the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board of the journal.
In the case of a conflict of interests or the suspicion of the use other authors texts in a manuscript without providing information about the source, the reviewer is to inform the Editorial Staff about this immediately.
The anonymous evaluations with commentaries are sent to the author, who is obligated to introduce necessary changes or take a position on the evaluation within the prescribed time limit.
The author is notified about the evaluation of the reviewer and the decision of the Advisory Board via e-mail.
