Reviewing Procedure

The principles for texts reviewing in the Regional Journal are compatible with the rules of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

  1. Sending an article for publication indicates agreeing by an author(authors) on its review process.
  2. Editorial Committee undertakes a preliminary assessment of articles in terms of their content and form. Texts which are prepared against the guidelines for authors are not accepted.
  3. Editorial Committee chooses reviewers of an issue of the journal.
  4. A reviewer of an article published in the scientific journal is a senior scientific staff member from the science and research area being the subject of publication (in justified cases departures from this principle shall be permitted).
  5. An article is reviewed by two independent reviewers.
  6. Reviews are based on the principle of double-blind review process, which means that both reviewers and authors do not identity of each other. Texts submitted for review should prevent the identification of an author (text without details of the author and without references allowing for his/her identification).
  7. Review is made excluding conflict of interests between authors and reviewers for which the following points are considered:
    • direct personal relationships (kinship, legal ties, conflict)
    • relations of professional subordination
    • direct scientific cooperation in the last two years
  8. In case of conflict of interest, both authors and reviewers are required to inform Editorial Committee about it.
  9. Articles are reviewed through SENIR, application and reviewing system of articles.
  10. 1Review of articles is written on the form used in the publishing house and contains unequivocal conclusion to allow or reject an article for publication.
  11. 1Review is regarded as negative when at least in one of the following three assessment criteria an article has got a failing grade:
    • substantive level,
    • selection and use of source literature.
  12. The condition of accepting an article for publication is obtaining two positive reviews.
  13. When justified an article can be reviewed for the third time if two earlier reviews at least in one of the aforementioned criteria included opposite grades (inadequate – very good).
  14. Editorial secretary informs authors about reviews results and offers access to them in order to have an opportunity to respond to reviewers’ comments. Authors are asked to return a corrected article no later than 14 days from the date of receiving a review.
  15. Reviewing process is carried out in accordance with the rules of confidentiality. Reviewers are not allowed to use knowledge on the article or research results and information presented in it before its publication.
  16. Editorial office does not reveal names of reviewers of individual articles. Editorial office publishes on the website and in the journal a general list of surnames of reviewers who have  cooperated with the journal in a given year.


List of reviewers collaborating with the journal:

Peter Walther Baur – University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Adam Drobniak – University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
Marcos Ferasso – Community University of Chapeco Region, Brazil
Krystian Heffner – University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
Rachmat Hidayat – University of Jember, Indonesia
Marian Kachniarz – Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Magdalena Kalisiak-Mędelska – Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
Jaroslav Koutský – Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
Daniel Meyer – North-West University, South Africa
Natanya Meyer – North-West University, South Africa
Kateryna Pryakhina – Kremenchuk Mykhailo Ostrohradskyi National University, Ukraine
Miloslav Šašek – Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic
Marius Venter – University of Johannesburg, South Africa