in this_issue
Edukacja 01_2020 okladka

Review Principles

Principles for review of articles submitted to publication in EDUKACJA quarterly

The leading editor, responsible for a given scientific discipline, is responsible for acceptance or rejection of work submitted for publication (and its subsequent acceptance for print). Initially work is assessed according to formal criteria followed by substantive evaluation. In the case of doubts, the case is consulted with the editor-in-chief.

All texts submitted are reviewed under conditions of dual anonymity.

The editorial office ensures that the article is reviewed by a person affiliated to a scientific or research unit other than that of the author. Articles in foreign languages are reviewed by reviewers affiliated to an institution other than that of the author. 

Reviews are provided to the author in the form of an anonymous opinion indicating strengths and weaknesses of the work along with a request to make amendments in consideration of the reviewers’ opinions.

Texts returned to the editorial office by their authors after the evaluation stage should include reviewers’ recommendations.

The article – on the basis of conditions of the review – is again sent to the same reviewers with the author’s written response to recommendations.

Names of all reviewers of the EDUKACJA quarterly are published once a year in the paper and electronic form of the magazine.

 Review form

Remarks for reviewers completing the review form

The reviewer should primarily take into account:
  1. clarity of presentation of the problem;
  2. quality of reference literature on the subject;
  3. innovation and originality of the proposed solution for the problem;
  4. conclusions from the work;
and should indicate shortcomings of the work (including linguistic, in particular when a text is written in English) which will allow the author to introduce reasonable corrections and explicitly determine whether the text:
  • should be rejected (brief justification of such decision),
  • submitted for repeat review after substantial corrections (indicate areas that require improvement; in such a situation, the text is reviewed once again by the same person);
  • accepted after minor corrections (the decision about publication is made by the leading editor);
  • accepted without corrections (which happens very rarely).