Rules of Reviewing / Review form

ISSN 2083-4721

Rules of reviewing manuscripts submitted to Świat Tekstów. Rocznik Słupski (The World of Texts. Słupsk Annual)

  1. The Editorial Board carries out a preliminary review of manuscripts submitted by Authors.
  2. Each prospective publication is reviewed by two independent external Reviewers.
  3. Manuscripts in languages other than Polish are reviewed by two Reviewers, of which one must be affiliated with a foreign institution from a country other than the Author’s.
  4. The journal uses the double-blind review process, which means that Reviewers and Authors do not know their identities or affiliations (which are replaced with codes).
  5. The review is made in writing and ends with an explicit statement concerning admission or rejection of the manuscript.
  6. The review form is available on the journal’s website.
  7. The names of the Reviewers are published in each issue of the journal.
  8. The Authors should be aware that a ghostwriting firewall is used in the publishing process, which means that Authors are required to disclose the extent of their actual contribution to the manuscript as well as the sources of funding. Any form of scientific misconduct, especially infringement or violation of the ethical rules that should be followed in scientific research, shall be exposed and reported to relevant entities (Author’s affiliated institutions, scientific societies, scientific editors’ associations etc.).

 

 

REVIEW OF MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED TO ŚWIAT TEKSTÓW. ROCZNIK SŁUPSKI (THE WORLD OF TEXTS. SŁUPSK ANNUAL)

Reviewer code: XX

Title of the reviewed manuscript: YY

Considering the quality of the submission, the reviewed manuscript (mark the appropriate option in the column on the right):

Is of significant value and offers innovative approach to the problem

 

Is above average

 

Is of standard quality

 

Is substandard

 

Is unacceptable

 

 

Considering the required modifications, the manuscript:

Is strongly recommended for publication as it is

 

Should be published after possible minor modifications

 

Should be published after necessary minor modifications

 

Should be published after major improvements suggested by Reviewer

 

Is not suitable for publication

 

 

The required modifications are related to:

- Formal errors (rules of quotation, footnotes)

 

- Composition

 

- Grammar or spelling

 

- Style

 

- Argumentation

 

- Methodology

 

- Subject matter

 

- Bibliography (primary and secondary reference sources)

 

 

Overall recommendation:

The article should be published

 

The article should be published after modifications suggested in the review

 

The article should be accepted by Reviewer after modifications

 

The article should be rejected

 

                                                                                             

Reviewer’s comments:

 ۩ ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Reviewer (title, name)

………………….………………………………………………………………………………

Review date: …………………………….

Reviewer code: XX

The Reviewer hereby confirms that he/she has read and understood the Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement available in the link on the home

  ……………………………………………                                                                    .............................................

          DATE                                                                                                    SIGNATURE