Principles

Reviewing

Peer-Review Principles

  1. Each manuscript submitted as a scholarly article is subject to the review procedure (scholarly articles are published in the “Scholarly Articles” section of the journal).
  2. Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Team, supported by the Programme Committee, from a group of experienced scholars (not directly related to the Author and not being part of our Editorial Team or Programme Committee) competent in the given discipline or sub-discipline.
  3. The Reviewers do not know the name of the Author of the manuscript under review, and the Authors do not know the names of the Reviewers of their papers (double-blind peer review).
  4. The Reviewer formulates a recommendation regarding the manuscript, answers a few closed-ended questions, and adds comments if necessary.
  5. The reviews are passed on to the Author.
  6. If the review is not of satisfactory standard, or if a conflict of interest has been identified in the meantime, the review is rejected and a new Reviewer is appointed.
  7. The Author has the right to reply to the review.
  8. The Author has the right to request the appointment of an additional reviewer, justifying it with a conflict of interest or other circumstances adversely affecting the impartiality of the Reviewer or the value of the review.
  9. The manuscript is only accepted for publication if the Author provides a final, corrected version of the paper, free from any errors or defects indicated in the review and free from doubts as to its substantive quality.

Peer-Review Procedure

  1. Each submitted manuscript is initially assessed by the Editorial Team, supported by the Programme Committee.
  2. If the Editorial Team has positively assessed the manuscript and qualified it as a scholarly article, it is sent to two independent Reviewers.
  3. If the Author does not agree with a Reviewer, he/she formulates a response to the review for the Editorial Team in which he/she argues his/her position. He/she also formulates a similar answer for the Reviewer.
  4. If the two Reviewers do not agree as to whether the manuscript should be published (one review is positive and the other negative), or when the Author requests it on the basis of serious concerns, the Editorial Team shall consult a third reviewer.
  5. If the Reviewer indicates that the article may be published only after the corrected version of the paper is approved by the Reviewer, the article may be accepted for publication only after obtaining such approval.
  6. The Editor-in-Chief considers the reviews and the Author’s answers and decides whether to accept the manuscript for publication or reject it in its current form. The Editor-in-Chief may ask the Editorial Team to make this decision collectively.

Review Criteria

Detailed review criteria are specified in the Review Form, which is available here: EF-review-form.docx.

Reviewers’ Duties

All Reviewers are expected to respect the Journal’s principles and policies concerning reviewing and publishing ethics presented on the Journal’s website, before all:

  • to evaluate the articles purely on the basis of professional and linguistic competence (race, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof, national origin, citizenship status and political beliefs of the Authors play no part in the process of manuscript evaluation);
  • to not reveal their identity to the Authors;
  • to inform the Editorial Team in case of suspicion of a conflict of interest or any of the following unacceptable practices:
    • plagiarism,
    • self-plagiarism,
    • ghostwriting,
    • guest authorship.

Editors’ Duties connected with Reviewing

All Editors are expected to respect the Journal’s principles and policies concerning reviewing and publishing ethics presented on the Journal’s website, before all:

  • to evaluate articles purely on the basis of professional and linguistic competence (race, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof, national origin, citizenship status and political beliefs of the Authors play no part in the process of manuscript evaluation);
  • to keep the Reviewers’ and Authors’ identities confidential;
  • to keep confidential all submissions which are processed by the Editorial Team (in particular, no information related to the submitted papers is revealed to any person who is not taking part in the editorial process; individuals authorized to access such information are: the Authors, the Reviewers, the relevant Editors and the Publisher);
  • to inform other members of the Editorial Team in case of suspicion of any conflicts of interest and of the following unacceptable practices:
    • plagiarism,
    • self-plagiarism,
    • ghostwriting,
    • guest authorship.

Authors’ Duties connected with Reviewing

All Authors are expected to respect the Journal’s principles and policies concerning reviewing and publishing ethics presented on the Journal’s website, before all:

  • to not reveal their identity to the Reviewers;
  • to inform the Editorial Team in case of suspicion of any conflicts of interest;
  • to make sure that the submitted article is not burdened with the following unacceptable practices:
    • plagiarism,
    • self-plagiarism,
    • ghostwriting,
    • guest authorship.

Anonymity vs. Transparency

In order to protect Reviewers against self-censorship, we ask them to remain anonymous and we do not disclose their names to the Authors at the end of the double-blind review process.

However, for the sake of transparency and to reassure our Readers of the quality of the journal, we publish a list of Reviewers who have reviewed articles for Edukacja Filozoficzna in the past few years (without giving the year of the review). This list is available here: /en/content/recenzenci.