Peer-Review Procedure

All articles are reviewed. The procedure of reviewing articles in "Colloquium" WNHiS AMW is in line with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Reviewing takes place in the double-blind review process system.

  1. the members of the Colloquium Editorial Board as well as thematic and statistical editors who make a preliminary evaluation of the papers are responsible for the verification of articles sent to "Colloquium"; internal reviews may be conducted by an employee of the university's organizational unit at the request of the editorial office;
  2. an article may be rejected if, for example, it does not meet the basic language or thematic requirements;
  3. a pre-approved article is sent to two independent reviewers, usually researchers of the same or a related subject;
  4. a reviewer may be a person with the academic title of professor or the academic degree of habilitated doctor in a given field and a reputation as a reliable peer-reviewer. In justified cases, the reviewer may be a person with a doctoral degree, specializing in the issues to which the reviewed article is devoted. Reviewers are not part of the journal’s editorial staff;
  5. referrer of the article assesses the topicality of the topic, the presented results and methods, terminology, quality of the information contained, illustrative material, selection and analysis of the literature used, anticipated interest and determines the form in which the work is suitable for printing;
  6. based on the grades, the Editorial Board decides to reject the publication, accept it for publication or send it back to the author for corrections; in the latter case, the texts of the peer-reviews are sent back to the author along with the publication – after removing the information about the identity of the referrers from them;
  7. the author, after receiving the peer-review with critical comments, is obliged to respond to them and make appropriate changes to the text of the publication;
  8. the corrected text of the publication along with the responses to the referrers comments, the author re-sends to the editorial office, after which the Editorial Board makes the final decision to reject or accept the article for publication;
  9. in the event that the referrers present contradictory opinions or there is a justified concern as to their reliability, the Editorial Board may appoint another peer-reviewer;
  10. opinions of all referrers are duly respected;
  11. peer-review is in writing and ends with an unambiguous request to admit the article for publication or to reject it;
  12. referrers are not allowed to use knowledge about the article before its publication;
  13. all the remarks are consulted through the Editorial Office;
  14. once a year, a list of referrers is published.