Acta Biologica

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Acta Biologica

ISSN: 2450-8330     eISSN: 2353-3013    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/ab
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ

Rules of Reviewing

All submitted papers are subject to a strict double-blind peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the analyzed paper. The process of selecting a reviewer for the manuscripts is carried out in accordance with the principles of good publishing practices. The first, preliminary answer regarding the acceptance of the manuscript for review is given to the author up to 2 weeks after submitting the article. The review process itself can take up to 4 months, while the time until publication is approximately 6 months or more (depending on the number of manuscripts awaiting publication). The journal-print-looking electronic version (in PDF format) of accepted manuscripts should be available in three months after final acceptation.

The factors that are taken into account in a review are as follows:

1. Compatibility with the scope of Acta Biologica
2. Elements of novelty and originality
3. Scientific and/or practical value of the article
4. Ethic requirements
5. Abstract depicting the entire article
6. Material and design of the experiments
7. Methodology and statistics
8. Credibility and importance of results
9. Presentation of data (necessary tables and figures)
10. Discussion and interpretation of results
11. Conclusions logically justified by the evidence adduced
12. Selection of up-to-date references

Of these, the main factors taken into account are significance and originality.

The possible decisions include:
Accept after minor corrections
Re-evaluate after major revision


The Editorial Board take it for granted that the text is an original work of the author, not published before (with the exception of translation), the author has the copyright and does not infringe any third-party rights. The obligation to disclose the third-party rights and to obtain the consent for publication of the translation lies with the author.

1. The reviewing procedure is subject to the guidelines of the Polish Ministry of Science and National Higher Education.

2. Each scientific paper shall be reviewed by two independent international reviewers that are experts in the area of the analyzed paper.

3. Scientific papers submitted for a review shall not feature the names and affiliations of their authors (double blind peer review).

4. The list of reviewers shall be published in every issue of «Acta Biologica».

5. Only the academics who obtained the qualification of habilitation or the rank of a professor may be appointed as reviewers.

6. Reviewers cannot be affiliated to the same research centre which the authors of the submitted scientific paper are affiliated to, or the research centre responsible for publishing the journal (University of Szczecin); reviewers from outside Poland are preferable.

7. Reviewers shall be selected by subject editors who shall take into account the renown of a reviewer and the concurrence of the reviewer's field of research with the subject of the scientific paper to be reviewed.

8. A potential reviewer shall receive a request for a review together with the title and abstract of a scientific paper. Having agreed to write a review, the reviewer shall receive a review form and the scientific paper as a Word file.

9. Both reviews shall be submitted to the subject editor who shall transfer them to the author(s) of the scientific paper together with the reviewers' notes.

10. The authors shall send to the topical editor their answer to the reviewers' notes.

11. The subject editor shall decide whether the scientific paper is to be published or re-reviewed.

12. If two negative reviews are submitted, the scientific paper shall not be published. In exceptional cases, well justified by the author(s) of the paper, the subject editor, having consulted the managing editor, may request for a re-review of the paper by other reviewers.

13. If one negative review is submitted, the subject editor, having consulted the managing editor, shall decide whether the article shall be published or re-reviewed by another reviewer.

Reviewers list



Vladimir Pésič – University of Montenegro (Montenegro)

Helmut Winkler – University Rostock (Germany)

Jean-Marie Exbrayat – Université de Lyon (France)

Maria Ogielska – University of Wrocław (Poland)

Reinhard Gerecke University of Tübingen (Germany)

Alireza Saboori – University of Tehran (Iran)

Jon Novodaru – Institutul National de Cercetare-Dezvoltare Delta Dunarii (Romania)

Abe Hiroshi – Nihon University (Japan)

Saeed Mohamadzade Namin - Islamic Azad University (Iran)

Izabela Gutowska - Pomeranian Medical University (Poland)

Leszek Jerzak – Uniwersytet Zielonogórski (Poland)

Sylwia Okoń – Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Lublinie (Poland)

Lateef O. Tiamiyu – University of Ilorin (Nigeria)

Adetola Jenyo-Oni – University of Ibadan (Nigeria)

Mohsen Abdel-Tawwab – Agricultural Research Center (Egypt)

Andrzej K. Siwicki – Uniwersytet Warmińsko Mazurski (Poland),

Michał Stosik – Uniwersytet Zielonogórski (Poland)

Seban Proches – University of KwaZulu-Natal (RPA)

Yuri Mazei – Moskow State University (Russia)

Robert Stryjecki – University of Life Science in Lublin (Poland)

Igor Dovgal – Russian Academy of Sciences, Sevastopol (Russia)

Etienne Geraert – Ghent University (Belgium)

Wilfrida Decraemer – Ghent University (Belgium)

Yannis Karaouzas – Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (Greece)

Mateusz Płóciennik – University of Łódź (Poland)

Małgorzata Szewczuk – West Pomeranian University of Technology (Poland)

Remigiusz Panicz – West Pomeranian University of Technology (Poland)

Małgorzata Blatkiewicz – Pomeranian Medical University (Poland)

Wojciech Płaska University of Life Science in Lublin (Poland)