Peer-review rules/List of Reviewers

 

1. Submitted elaborations will undergo a double peer-review process by independent advisers, i.e. those who are not ? in any case ? connected with Editorial Board or author.

2. The peer-review process follows the double blind review mode, i.e. adviser and author have no information about each other?s identity.

3. The identity of each elaboration?s advisers will not be disclosed; after each publishing year a global list of advisers will be published on the internet site of ?Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego?.

4. Adviser receives an unpublished elaboration which he/she shall treat as confidential until its publication; Therefore the Editorial Board kindly asks the advisers not to disclose the reviewed elaborations nor the opinions about them nor to use the knowledge obtained by reviewing the elaboration.

5. Submitting the elaboration for peer-review the Editorial Board submits a review form (see Appendix ?KPPubl FORMULARZ RECENZJI? under ?Downloads?); a peer-review shall end with unequivocal conclusion concerning recommendation for publication or rejection of reviewed elaboration.

6. Elaborations may be submitted to advisers, who?s field of specialization is not identic with the subject of certain elaboration; in the opinion of Editorial Board a specialist knowledge in the elaboration?s subject is not necessary for a constructive peer-review; if the adviser acknowledges he/she is inappropriate for a review of submitted elaboration, he/she is kindly asked to return the elaboration to Editorial Board immediately.

7. The evaluation of submitted elaboration shall resist on substantial, content-related criteria only; criticism which roots in personal prejudices, political persuasions or religious or similar beliefs is unacceptable; it is particularly important in the field of public law, where not only legal (normative), but also political and economic perspective plays a significant role.

8. Every critical or negative remarks concerning the reviewed elaboration shall be provided with sufficient comments; Editorial Board will not accept reviews, which will not meet substantial or formal requirements, especially if the content is not logically linked with conclusions, i.e. reviews, which are definitely critical but with positive conclusion or conversely.

9. Adviser´s remarks are submitted to the author; all reasonable and sufficiently justified conclusions of the adviser are binding for the author and he/she should improve the elaboration according to them; in case, the author does not agree with adviser´s conclusions he/she is entitled to present his/her standpoint to the Editorial Board.

10. In case the adviser suspects an author of plagiarism or any breach of intellectual property rights of third parties, or the elaboration has slanderous character, the adviser shall promptly inform the Editorial Board giving the ground of his/her suspicions.

11. The adviser should submit the peer-review form via e-mail (and, separately, in paper form with personal signature) within 1 (one) months from the date of receiving the elaboration and peer-review form from the Editorial Board.

12. According to a common custom and practice peer-reviews of the elaborations are made without any remuneration; advisers receive a copy of each issue of ?Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego?.

 

List of reviewers of publications in 2014:

Antoni Bojańczyk

Sławomir Godek

Mirosław Granat

Agata Kosieradzka-Federczyk

Jacek Lang

Grzegorz Sibiga

Adam Szafrański

Anna Piszcz

Krzysztof Wójtowicz

Robert Zawłocki

Copyright © 2020 UKSW Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone
Informacja o ciasteczkach