Peer-review Sheet

Publication rules

I. Peer review.

1. The Editorial Board guarantees double-blind peer review as well as ghostwriting and guest authorship firewall according to the rules of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Peer review and editing is regulated by the following rules.
2. After the initial acceptation of the text by the Editorial Board the text is submitted anonymously to the first peer reviewer. Only in the case of obtaining a positive review the text is submitted to the second reviewer. The reviewers are selected according to the affinity between their specialisation and the topic of the text.
3. After obtaining two positive reviews (or, if reviewers demanded modifications of the text, after the author makes the required amendments) the text is sent to proofreading and then published in the next issue of the journal.
4. In case of special issues the text requires acceptance by the special issue editor.
5. If one of the members of the Editorial Board or editors submits a text, the double-blind review process is applied according to the general rules. The remaining members of the Editorial Board are obliged to apply the standards of anonymity and impartiality.
6. If the Editorial Board decides that the double-blind review procedure would be impractical due to the character of the text, self-referencing which unambiguously identifies the author or uniqueness of the topic which only one author in the country deals with, the Editorial Board decides to abstain from the procedure and asks the reviewers to submit a written statement that there is no conflict of interest between them and the author. The conflict of interest exists in case of direct personal relations (kinship, affinity, legal bonds, animosity), relations of professional hierarchy, direct academic cooperation within two years before reviewing.
7. Names of reviewers are never disclosed to the author, even if the double-blind review procedure is not applied.
8. If the procedure is applied and a positive review is submitted, the reviewer has the right to learn the identity of the author before the text is published. In case of a negative review this information is not revealed to the reviewer.
9. Peer reviews are to be submitted in the written form, be signed and contain an unambiguous recommendation for publishing or rejecting the text. The author is informed only about essential parts of the review without any indications that could reveal the identity of the reviewer. The author knows only that the reviewer is the person from a published list of reviewers.
10. The reviewer should focus on the academic qualities of reviewed texts, taking into account particularly their originality against the background of Polish and foreign scholarship and the ability to pose new research questions. Logical thinking of the author and formal qualities of the text (language, cohesion etc.) are also assessed.
11. The list of reviewers of a few previous issues is published on the website of the journal and in particular paper issues.

 

II. Preventing “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship”.

1. Prevention of ghostwriting and ghost authorship should be an important goal of editorial boards of scientific articles. As defined by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, ghostwriting concerns texts which were created with substantial contribution of a third person who is not mentioned as one of the authors or not thanked for in acknowledgements. Guest authorship (“honorary authorship”) refers to situations in which the contribution of one of the declared authors is inconsequential or none.
2. In order to prevent these practices, the Ministry recommends that the Editorial Board demand from authors revealing the contribution of each author (alongside with giving their affiliation and precise information on the authorship of concepts, assumptions, methods, protocols used in the publication). The responsible person is the author who submits the text. Moreover, the Editorial Board should declare that ghostwriting and ghost authorship are not compliant with academic standards. If detected, they will be publicly denounced. Appropriate bodies will be informed (universities of affiliation, scientific associations etc.).
3. Taking into account that these practices are fairly rare in legal studies, the Editorial Board demands from co-authors to declare their contribution to the text and the research it draws upon.
4. The Editorial Board acknowledges that these practices breach academic standards and will denounce them.
5. If the author’s research was funded by a different unit than the unit of the author’s affilication, the author is required to indicate in the first footnote (linked to the title of the text) all the other sources of funding.

 

III. Prevention of intellectual property abuse

1. If the Editorial Board or reviewers detect a case of plagiarism, the Editorial Board will act accordingly to the character and scope of the breach of intellectual property rights. In particular, it will inform the institution of the author’s affiliation, scientific associations to which he/she belongs as well as other journal publishers in the field.
2. In selected cases the Editorial Board may inform the public prosecutor.

 

IV. Editorial bodies: rights and formation

1. Ordinary members of the Editorial Board (one or two) together with the Editor-in-Chief are each time appointed by the publisher – the Director of the Institute of European Studies. This unit supervises the journal.
2. Each member of the Editorial Board should possess a title of Doctor of Laws and be a specialist in public or private international law or European law.
3. The term of office of the Editorial Board is corresponds to the term of office of each Director of the Institute.
4. If a new Director does not change the membership of the Editorial Board through a written decision handed over to the members of the Editorial Board up to one month after his/her election, it is assumed that the term of office of the Board is continued for the next term.
5. The Director has the right to remove the Editorial Board or each of its members, including the Editor-in-Chief.
6. Removal of the Editor-in-Chief becomes effective at the moment of notifying this decision to the Registry of Journals. Removal of other members of the Editorial Board becomes effective at the moment of delivering the decision to them. If, however, editing work on the next issue began before the moment of removal, the Editorial Board works in its hitherto formation until the publication of the new issue.
7. The Editorial Board works in sessions and takes decisions by ordinary resolution (in case of stalemate, the Editor-in-Chief has the decisive vote). It meets at least once a year in January.
8. In all unspecified matters the Editorial Board is the competent body.
9. The Editor-in-Chief appoints and removes proofreaders and special issue editors. The latter performs his/her function until the issue is published.
10. Members of the Scientific Board are appointed by the Editorial Board in cooperation with the Director of the Institute.

 

V. Miscellaneous

Suggested citation method: PWPM, vol. … <in Roman numerals> (year of publication)

e.g.: PWPM, vol. XI (2013).