Review rules

    §1
  1. The editors of the Analyses and Studies of CASP journal perform a preliminary verification of the submitted texts, examining the adequacy of the article's subject matter with the journal's profile and compliance with editorial requirements.
  2. Articles that do not meet the criteria of a scientific article will not be accepted for publication. A scientific article is an article presenting the results of original research of an empirical, theoretical or analytical nature, including the title of the publication, surnames and names of the authors, research methodology, course of the research process, its results and conclusions, along with a citation of the cited literature (bibliography).
    §2
  1. Articles are reviewed by two reviewers in accordance with the principle of double-blind review process ), according to which the articles submitted to the Reviewers are free from data allowing identification of the Author or identification of the Reviewers by the Author or Authors of the article and the Reviewers.
  2. If the text of the article allows identification of the Author, the Reviewer signs a declaration of no conflict of interests. A conflict of interest is considered to exist between the Reviewer and the Author in the case of direct personal relationships (especially relationships to the second degree, marriage); professional subordination or direct professional scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the text.
  3. Two External Reviewers are appointed to evaluate the article, who:
  • are affiliated with an entity other than the Author of the article;
  • are not members of the Editorial Board of the Analyses and Studies of CASP journal;
  • have at least a doctoral degree and recognized scientific achievements guaranteeing an appropriate level of review.
  1. Reviewers evaluate the submitted works, taking into account the following criteria:
  • contribution of the article to the development of science;
  • significant nature of research and/or special knowledge of the subject matter based on personal experience;
  • structure of the article (layout of content, indication of the thesis(s), consistent analyses aimed at its verification);
  • style, language;
  • research results and conclusions.

 

  1. The review ends with a clear conclusion regarding:
  • allowing the article to be published without corrections;
  • admitting the article to publication after introducing the corrections suggested by the Reviewer;
  • admitting the article to publication after introducing significant changes and corrections suggested by the Reviewer and going through the review process again;
  • or rejection of the article.
  1. A list of Scientific Reviewers cooperating with the Editorial Board is published on the journal's website. The names of the Reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed.
  2. Reviewers treat articles made available to them with respect for the principle of confidentiality and do not use information obtained on this occasion before publishing the article.
  3. The Reviewers' comments are forwarded to the Author of the article. If the Reviewer makes the publication of the article conditional on making changes he/she suggests, the Author is obliged to do so in accordance with the comments formulated by the Reviewer within 30 days from the date of receiving the review in the change tracking mode. The Author may refer to the Reviewer's suggestion by presenting their justified position to the Editorial Board of the journal Analyses and Studies of CASP.

9) Conference notes and reports are not subject to review. A review form is published on the Analyses and Studies of CASP website.

 

    §3
  1. Articles published in the journal Analyses and Studies of CASP are subject to publication, which:
  • passed the initial verification of the Thematic Editor;
  • will receive two positive reviews;
  • received a positive opinion from the Editor-in-Chief.
  1. Doubts regarding the reviewed texts are resolved by the Editorial Committee.
  2. The final decision to publish the text is made by the Editorial Committee, taking into account the comments included in the review, the importance of the issues raised, the originality of the approach to the topic, and the quality of the research conducted.
  3. The basis for rejecting the article is:
  • negative assessment of the Thematic Editor;
  • receiving at least one negative review;
  • negative opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.