PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All scholarly manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to a double-blind peer review (the identities of the Authors and the Reviewers are not disclosed). This applies to all full-length articles, including review articles.
Two external Reviewers with a doctorate degree or higher, not having a conflict of interest with those responsible for the authorship of the manuscript, including having a different affiliation, will assess manuscripts initially accepted by the Editors after a preliminary evaluation (technical screening, assessment in terms of content and form, and verification of the thematic scope).
Articles that are not scholarly texts (excluding interviews submitted to the “Talks” section) and/or do not meet the basic substantive and linguistic standards required of such texts, do not correspond to the profile of the journal, violate personal rights and ethical principles, are rejected by the editors at the preliminary stage.
Reviewers submit their reviews in writing (via email or the journal’s platform), together with the declaration of potential conflicts of interest and information whether they discovered the identity of the Authors. The Editors encourage them to include comments on ethics, originality, plagiarism, etc. in the review form.
The review is anonymous and confidential. Reviewers cannot use the knowledge about the reviewed text before it is published. If the review is not satisfactory, Editors may invite additional reviewers or discuss the case internally. If reviews are largely contradictory, the editors may decide to refer the text to the third reviewer. It is always the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision on any material to be published in the Journal.
The conference materials will be published only if they meet the criteria of non-prepublication and will be subject to the standard peer review procedure.
Articles written by Editors, members of the Board or anyone else having a potential conflict of interest with the Journal (that needs to be disclosed) will be subject to the standard peer review procedure conducted by the Board members and Reviewers who do not have such correlation with the Authors. In the case of articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief, the review process is managed by one of the Deputy Editors who also makes the final decision.
All the decisions are impartial, independent, and based only on the quality of the submitted material, also in the case of special issues or supplements.
The Journal publishes a list of Reviewers once a year. in the second issue and on the journal's website, without disclosing details on the reviewed articles.
Depending on the nature of the supplementary material, such material may also be subject to the peer review process.
As the Journal operates on double-blind review principle, the Authors are requested to prepare their manuscript with masked authorship details (the names of Authors, their affiliations, funding, acknowledgement, etc.) that otherwise might disclose their identity.
Instructions for text authors can be found here: https://www.journals.polon.uw.edu.pl/index.php/dlk/about/submissions.
Any special issues and supplements are subject to the standard peer review procedure.
Non-scientific material that is excluded from the external peer review procedure includes:
- Editorials,
- interviews submitted to the “Talks” section.
Average time for initial evaluation of manuscripts: 14 days
Average time for external reviews: 60 days
Average time to publish an article: 200 days
Reviews forms are available at:
review form for articles submitted to the "Studies" section
review form for articles submitted to the "Varia" section
review form for articles submitted to the "Review articles" section
