Menu Close

Peer review

This journal operates a single-blind review process. The names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the publication. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper.  Papers are peer-reviewed by independent reviewers outside the university/institution of the author. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor’s decision is final.

The peer review process:

Submission of Abstract

The author submits the abstract with the form here…

Submission of Paper

The author submits the paper. This is by email to konf-def@pk.edu.pl

Editorial Office Assessment

The Editorial Office checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.

Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the publication and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Sent to Reviewers

The Editor sends invitations to at least two individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (outside the author’s institution). Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline.

Review is Conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the Editorial Office, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.

If accepted, the editor sends to paper to the English language review.

The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. The comments are anonymous.

Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the editor.
https://dpa.arch.pk.edu.pl/peer-review/
dpa.arch.pk.edu.pl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
55892
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:NJFGR35OIZLA2HY5O3NOFIFN6KS3SQPZ
<urn:uuid:e11b1c4c-53d8-4eda-9f01-6f514699fa21>
2022-05-27T21:21:56Z
149.156.132.44
text/html
sha1:CBVJ5HSDLN3NCLFTPCCIDHZWYDZW635G
<urn:uuid:ddb55cb9-912f-4974-ac8f-5475f4cf0eec>
https://dpa.arch.pk.edu.pl/peer-review/
response
<urn:uuid:567f8448-5037-4238-abf2-a84b041b54e6>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-200
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/