The review procedure in force in Wrocław Theological Review complies with the rules of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education: “Good practices in review procedures in science” and the evaluation criteria for scholarly journals updated by the competent ministry.
The submitted article is reviewed only after all formal requirements have been met (see guidelines for authors). The article is evaluated from the formal point of view by the Editorial Board (internal review).
By submitting a manuscript for publication, the author agrees to the review procedure.
The external review is carried out by two independent reviewers, considered to be experts on the subject of the submitted article, with at least a PhD degree.
The manuscript submitted to the Editorial Board by a doctoral student requires the prior approval of his/her supervisor. For this purpose, the supervisor fills in a review form prepared by the Editorial Board. A review by the academic supervisor is not treated by the Editorial Board as an external review of the article.
The review process is based on the double-blind peer review model, i.e. the identity of the Reviewers is not known to the Author and the identity of the Author is not known to the Reviewers.
The external review is as a rule carried out by researchers from outside the institution to which the Author is affiliated, who do not have a conflict of interest with the Author, which means personal relationships such as marriage or kinship or affinity to the second degree, as well as professional subordination, scholarly cooperation during the preceding two years, etc.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to appoint reviewers from its own academic community in the case of Authors affiliated with universities other than the Pontifical Theological Faculty. Neither the Editor-in-Chief not the Editorial Secretary can be reviewers.
In the event the number of specialists in a given field should be very limited, derogations from the above rules are permitted.
The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. The usual deadline for a review is three weeks. The Editorial Board expects the reviewer to accept or reject the request to prepare a review within one week.
The review must contain the reviewer’s unequivocal recommendation concerning either the conditions for accepting the manuscript for further publication process or on rejecting it. Reviews that are too general, do not refer to the content of the reviewed manuscript, and that do not provide adequate reasons for accepting or rejecting the manuscript for publication will not be taken into account.
The reviewer assesses if the manuscript meets the following criteria: – The title is appropriate to the manuscript content. – The abstract accurately reflects the manuscript content. – The keywords are appropriate for the manuscript content. – The article is original and contributes to the field. – The thesis and aim of the research are clearly presented and justified. – The manuscript presents the current state of research on the subject. – The manuscript is correct in terms of factual and logical accuracy and its structure is appropriate and clear. – The manuscript is compliant with academic standards and its language is comprehensible. – The manuscript adequately ties to current and representative literature and the citations are correct. – The conclusions are appropriate and compatible with the content and aim of the manuscript.
The reviewer submits one of the following recommendations to the Editorial Board: – Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication without alterations. – Accept: the manuscript will be suitable for publication after minor revisions; the text does not need to be reviewed again (please indicate any suggestions for changes in point III of the form). – Revise and resubmit: the manuscript as it is cannot be published; the text requires major revisions and another review (please indicate the necessary changes in point III of the form). – Reject: the manuscript as it is should be rejected without encouraging a rewrite (please provide reasons in point III of the form).
The author is obliged to correct the article in accordance with the reviewer’s suggestions, if the Editorial Board found the review to meet the formal and substantive requirements. The author has also the right to object to the reviewer’s suggestions. If the author considers a comment to be unjustified, they are obliged to explain their objection, following which they may refrain from correcting the manuscript. The reviewer has the right to review the corrected manuscript again if the reviewer decided that the article should be reviewed again after the author’s corrections have been made.
The final decision on accepting or rejecting an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations, analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and the final version of the article provided by the author together with their possible responses to the reviewer’s comments.
The reviewer submits the review by logging on to the journal’s website and filling in the electronic form, possibly adding a comment or file with comments to the article. The reviewer has the possibility to attach the reviewed text together with comments to it in a separate file.
Authors are required to disclose the contribution of individual authors to the publication. The Editorial Board also requests information on the sources of funding of the publication, the contributions of academic and research institutions, associations and other entities. In the event of suspicion of any bad practices identified by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the reviewer should immediately alert the Editorial Board; therefore, the reviewer should be familiar with the ethical principles adopted by the Editorial Board.
Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge contained in the reviewed work before its publication.
As a rule, the review is free of charge.
At least once a year, the Editorial Board shall publish on its website a list of reviewers who reviewed manuscripts for the recently published issues.
