Studia Administracyjne

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia Administracyjne

ISSN: 2080-5209     eISSN: 2353-284X    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sa

Rules of review

In order to ensure high quality and objectify assessment of scientific articles published in our magazine, the Editorial Board of the magazine Studia Administracyjne introduced the multi-stage reviewing procedure. The reviewing procedure applies to all scientific articles; with the exception of reviews of books, reports and materials from conferences, trainings, meetings, announcements and reports from important events.

Formal assessment of the article:

  • the Secretary of the Editorial Board conducts formal assessment on the grounds of the criteria concerning formal terms of the article in compliance with the Guidelines for Authors;
  • if formal criterion is not met, the article is sent back to the Author with relevant information on missing/incorrect elements;
  • after receiving the article the Editorial Board sends the declaration on the originality of the text, consent to personal data processing and granting non-exclusive licence to publish the text in the magazine for the Author to fill in.

Anonymization of the article:

  • the Secretary of the Editorial Board removes from the text any information on the identity of the Author/Authors (also from the file properties).

Preliminary internal review:

  • the Editor-in-chief and the Theme Editor carry out the preliminary internal review in terms of the compliance of the topic of the article with the theme scope of the magazine and in terms of originality (using the anti-plagiarism programme);
  • in the case of stating scientific dishonesty, especially plagiarism and self-plagiarism, after completing the publication ethics procedure, the Editorial Board can reject the text and inform the institution given in the Author’s affiliation;
  • selecting two external Reviewers;
  • the Editor-in-chief may consult the article with an expert in a given field, in particular a member of the Scientific Council.

External review:

  • two external Reviewers outside the unit affiliated by the Author of the article; in the case of texts written by foreign Authors (in a foreign language) at least one Reviewer affiliated in a foreign institution;
  • the assessment of the article is based on the following criteria: assessment of the subject matter, assessment of the method, assessment of the substantive content, formal assessment; articles which receive less than 60% of the maximum number of points do not qualify for print; the Reviewer may give notes to the Author, propose corrections and justification of the assessment;
  • the Reviewer presents his or her recommendations: the work is printable (in the presented form/after introduction of substantive corrections/after complete rewording/after completing and extending research), the work is non-printable;
  • the Reviewer draws up a review within 1 month as of receiving the text;
  • in dubious cases the decision on the publication of the text is taken by the Editorial Board on the grounds of the drawn up reviews (it is admissible to submit the article for review by a third Reviewer); if at least one review is negative, the article is rejected.

Forwarding the review to the Author:

  • forwarding the review to the Author;
  • in the case of the Reviewer’s recommendation to introduce changes to the text, the Author corrects the article and responds to the Reviewer’s comments within 2 weeks.

Decision on the publication of the text:

  • sending the corrected text to the Reviewer in case the review indicated the need for re-assessment of the text after introduction of changes;
  • after acceptance of the corrected text by the Reviewer or the Editor-in-chief and the Theme Editor (in the case the text was not sent for re-assessment by the Reviewer) the article is approved for publication;
  • a text is rejected in the case of not correcting it in compliance with the Reviewer’s recommendations, a lack of the Author’s response to the review notes or a lack of approval of the corrected text by the Reviewer/the Editor-in-chief and the Theme Editor. 

All stages of the review procedure (both internal and external) are of anonymous character (double-blind review process), which means that both, the Reviewer does not know whose text he or she is assessing and the Author, even after approval of the article for print, does not know the identity of Reviewers.