The review process

Rules for reviewing articles in the "Facta Simonidis" semi-annual journal

The procedure for reviewing academic papers published in the Facta Simonidis semi-annual journal follows the guidelines presented in the Communication of the Polish Minister of Science and Higher Education of 29 May 2013.

I. General rules

1. All academic papers submitted for publication in "Facta Simonidis" are subject to the review and evaluation process.
2. By submitting an article for publication, the author agrees to the present review process.
3. An initial assessment of the article is carried out by the Editorial Board of Facta Simonidis, which rejects the text or qualifies it for the review stage.
4. Manuscripts are reviewed by two reliable reviewers who are competent in their fields or disciplines, have at least a doctoral degree, are independent, and do not have an employment relationship with the publisher or a conflict of interest with the author.
5. The papers are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double blind review process).
6. The list of the reviewers is published in each issue of the journal and once a year on its website.

II. Detailed rules
1. Two positive reviews are a prerequisite for the manuscript to be accepted for publication.
2. If the reviewers recommend corrections, the author is obliged to take them into consideration as a prerequisite for the manuscript to be accepted for publication.
3. The reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality and secrecy of any information provided by the editor.
4. The reviewers may not use any knowledge related to the paper prior to its publication.
5. If the reviewers suspect that the article is similar to previously published works, they are obliged to immediately inform the Editorial Board of "Facta Simonidis" about this fact.

III. Guidelines for the reviewers
1. The reviewers should make use of the review form.
2. The signed and scanned form should be submitted using the OJS Platform. It is also acceptable to send a paper version of the article review to the editor’s address, with a handwritten signature. The review is kept at the editor’s office for 5 years.
3. The written review must contain the reviewer’s clear statement concerning the conditions under which the article may be accepted for publication or its rejection.
4. Reviews will not be considered if they are not prepared in accordance with the principles of academic review writing, if they contain unjustified criticism or praise of the article, and if there is no logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. if they are strongly critical but with a positive conclusion or vice versa.
5. The final decision to accept the article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the analysis of comments contained in the reviews and the final version of the article provided by the author.

IV. Suggestions for the reviewers
1. An article may be accepted if
a. it contains innovative interpretations;
b. it relates to the subject matter of broadly understood arts sciences, cultural and religious sciences, history, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, security sciences, social communication and media sciences, political and administrative sciences, or sociological sciences;
c. it presents the state of research on a given subject;
d. it discusses the results of research in other areas provided their relation to the above-mentioned fields is shown.

2. An article should be returned for refinement if

a. the subject or problem is not well and clearly defined;
b. inappropriate, incorrect or imprecise scholarly terminology is used;
c. the structure of the text is not correct;
d. the literature on the subject is incomplete

3. An article should be rejected if
a. its content testifies to the author’s lack of knowledge concerning the subject matter;
b. the hypothesis formulated is not plausible;
c. there is a strong imbalance or lack of balance between the importance of the subject matter and the length at which it has been discussed;
d. it is an aggressive polemic against another publication (book or article).

Review form