PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES

  1. The procedure for reviewing articles in „Theological Studies Białystok Drohiczyn Łomża" is in line with the recommendations described in the brochure of the Ministry of Higher Education Science "Good practices in review procedures in science", Warsaw 2011 and the principles of publishing ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE).
  2. The authors, by sending their work for publication together with the Author's written statement in the journal, agree to the review process.
  3. Submitted publications are evaluated first by the Editorial Board.
  4. The publications are then subjected to a double / blind review process by reliable reviewers who have at least a doctoral degree and are proficient in their field.
  5. Submitted works will not be sent to reviewers from the same institution where the authors come from and to persons who may be in conflict with the author. Conflict of interest is understood as service dependence (professional subordination), direct scientific cooperation (in the last two years preceding the year of preparing the review) and direct personal relations (relationship to the second degree, marriage) occurring between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. Reviewers are also not members of the Editorial Board (i.e. the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief and editorial secretary).
  6. The papers are reviewed confidentially and anonymously.
  7. The work is assigned an editorial number, identifying it at further stages of the publishing process, in order to preserve the principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and author of the article.
  8. The review always has a written form and ends with a clear conclusion regarding the admission of the text for publication (ie acceptance) or rejection of the text (ie non-acceptance for publication). The text review form can be found on the magazine's website.
  9. The Reviewer's decision is limited to the following options:
    1. Accept the article for publication in the form presented.
    2. Accept the article for publication after amendment.
    3. Reject the article.
  10. Rational and motivated opinions presented in the review are binding on the author of the reviewed article. He must take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and improve the article in a certain way. When the author comes to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to re-review the work.
  11. The reviewer should alert the Editorial Board about the possible similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.
  12. The reviewer should make a review without undue delay. The usual time limit for making a review is four weeks.
  13. Reviewers are not allowed to use knowledge about the work prior to its publication.
  14. The final editor for qualifications is taken by the Editor-in-Chief based on the analysis of comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.
http://www.studiateologiczne.pl/en/procedure-for-reviewing-scientific-articles
www.studiateologiczne.pl
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
9411
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:BNCE25CKA3MKDZI2WHUMI4AZ32ZMOBFE
<urn:uuid:f5004944-3ecd-432a-aafd-d2170e5f0238>
2021-02-28T19:41:04Z
194.181.186.39
text/html
sha1:MN3QPJ7DKUVGFKPBQGDFX6ZSBFVVYKGQ
<urn:uuid:3b51187c-daac-4a85-9e4f-6db808bca747>
http://www.studiateologiczne.pl/en/procedure-for-reviewing-scientific-articles
response
<urn:uuid:0bc0f606-dbfd-4b20-a1a9-f851adcd10b1>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-119.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/