Reviewers

 

List of reviewers for 2015 ("Rocznik Europeistyczny" vol. 1)

  • Dr hab. Renata Duda
  • Dr hab. Wojciech Horyń
  • Prof. Andrzej Jabłoński
  • Dr hab. Krzysztof Kociubiński
  • Prof. Teresa Łoś-Nowak
  • Dr hab. Magdalena Musiał-Karg
  • Prof. Zdzisław Puślecki
  • Prof. Janusz Ruszkowski
  • Prof. UWr, dr hab. Barbara Wiśniewska-Paź

 

List of reviewers for 2016 ("Rocznik Europeistyczny" vol. 2)

  • Dr hab. Renata Duda
  • Dr hab. Wojciech Horyń
  • Prof. UWr, dr hab. Krzysztof Kociubiński
  • Dr hab. Radosław Kupczyk
  • Prof. UAM, dr hab. Magdalena Musiał-Karg
  • Prof. Janusz Ruszkowski
  • Prof. UWr, dr hab. Aldona Wiktorska-Święcka
  • Prof. UWr., dr hab. Barbara Wiśniewska-Paź

 

List of reviewers for 2017 ("Rocznik Europeistyczny" vol. 3)

  • Prof. Wiesław Bokajło
  • Dr hab. Renata Duda
  • Prof. Andrzej Jabłoński
  • Prof. UWr, dr hab. Krzysztof Kociubiński
  • Prof. UJK, dr hab. Ireneusz Kraś
  • Dr hab. Krystyna Rogaczewska
  • Prof. UWr., dr hab. Barbara Wiśniewska-Paź
  • Dr hab. Jerzy Żurko

 

List of reviewers for 2018 ("Rocznik Europeistyczny" vol. 4)

  • Prof. Zbigniew Czachór
  • Dr hab. Renata Duda
  • Dr hab. Wojciech Horyń
  • Prof. Andrzej Jabłoński
  • Prof. UJK, dr hab. Ireneusz Kraś
  • Prof. UWr., dr hab. Barbara Wiśniewska-Paź
  • Prof. Marek Pietraś
  • Dr hab. Jerzy Żurko

 

 

Peer Review Process

 

1. Submitted texts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editorial Team in terms of form and substance. If a paper fits the profile of the “Rocznik Europeistyczny” journal (The Annals of European Studies) and meets the formal requirements as specified in the “Information for the Authors” section, it is qualified for peer review.

2. The Secretary of the Editorial Team sends the texts to two reviewers for review.

3. The Editorial Team selects the reviewers from among specialists in the relevant field, taking into account suggestions from the theme editor. The reviewer may be a person from the list of regular reviewers maintained by the editorial team or outside of it. The selected reviewers must guarantee: independence and lack of the conflict of interest with the authors of the papers (lack of direct personal relationship, reporting relationship or direct scientific cooperation over two years preceding the review).

4. In the case of texts in a foreign language, one of the reviewers is, where possible, a person affiliated with a foreign institution other than the country of residence/employment of the paper’s author.

5. Reviews follow the principle of double anonymity: the reviewers and authors do not know each other’s identity (procedure of double-blind review). The information about the reviewer may only be revealed if the review is negative or the paper contains debatable elements, at the request of the Author provided that the Reviewer concerned agrees to the disclosure of their information.

6. The reviewer should take into account the substantive value of the texts being reviewed, especially their originality and new information they provide as well as posing new research problems. Formal aspects of the text are also subject to evaluation.

7. Reviews are provided in written form. A review should contain a clear conclusion as to whether the paper has or has not been accepted for printing. A review may state that the paper will be accepted for printing provided that the author meets specified conditions (adjusts or supplements it accordingly). The author’s response to the review should be in written form.

8. The publication is accepted for printing if both the reviewers find the text to be of high quality in terms of its substance, and especially originality.

9. In the case of contradictory conclusions of the reviews, the decision as to whether or not to accept the text for printing is up to the Editorial Board. In such a case, an opinion of a super-reviewer may also be sought.

10. However, the Editorial Team reserves the right to suggest adjustments, based on their own opinions or those of the reviewers, for the author to introduce to the text, and to make the final decision as to the publication of the text conditional upon whether the suggestion is followed.

11. The list of regular reviewers will be published by the Editorial Team once a year in the journal and on the website. The list will be arranged in alphabetical order.

12. The procedure for reviewing papers complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which were presented in the brochure “Good practices in reviewing procedures in science,” Warsaw 2011.

 

Review form: (link for download)

zamknij

Your cart (products: 0)

No products in cart

Your cart Checkout