Peer Review Process
a) Internal reviews:
- manuscripts submitted for publication in „Bibliotekarz Podlaski” are subject to verification:
* Formal - the text should satisfy the requirements set forth in EDITORIAL GUIDELINES
* Thematic: after receiving a manuscript, the Publisher conducts a preliminary evaluation to ensure that the submitted manuscript is consistent with the substantive and thematic scope designated by the Publisher. The decision to accept or reject a manuscript will be based on the following criteria: the conformity of the manuscript’s subject with the Publisher’s profile, the originality of the discussed topics, the manuscript’s academic value, the quality of the contributor’s own studies, the literature sources used, compliance with the Publisher’s requirements as to the structure, volume, style and form of literary reasoning.
- Manuscripts submitted to the journal are checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software (Similarity Check). The Publisher will bring such cases to the attention of relevant entities, depending on circumstances. The Publisher will take immediate action if there is a suspicion that the contributor who has submitted a manuscript or whose manuscript has been published does not comply with the rules of publication ethics (see ANTI-PLAGIARISM POLICY). Texts submitted for publication in sections „Reports”, and „Memories and Tributes” are not checked for plagiarism.
The contributing author is informed that the manuscript has been positively assessed in the internal evaluation procedure and will be submitted for publication or that the Publisher is not interested in publishing it.
b) External reviews:
- If a submitted manuscript successfully completes the preliminary evaluation phase, the contributing author will be informed about the registration of the manuscript and the commencement of the substantive review process. Editor-in-Chief in cooperation with thematic editors forward the manuscript to two independent reviewers who specialise in the field. In the case of contributions in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers must be affiliated with a foreign institution. If the reviewers differ in their assessment of a manuscript submitted for review, a third reviewer will be appointed. Due to the double-blind review requirements, the anonymity of the author and reviewers will be maintained throughout the review period (see the ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS). A prerequisite for the commencement of the review process is a positive result of prior anti-plagiarism verification.
- A review is delivered in a written form ( see REVIEW COMMENT FORM). In the event that reviewers recommend minor changes to a manuscript, which, in their opinion, do not mandate another review, the author will be asked to amend the manuscript accordingly. If the review shows the necessity to introduce major changes to the manuscript, a new review may be carried out after their introduction. In such a case, the corrected manuscript may be reviewed twice. If, following two additional reviews, the reviewers consider the manuscript unsuitable for publication, it will be rejected without the right to re-submit.
c) Correcting and editing by a Contributor
- Based on feedback received from both external reviewers, the Editorial Board makes the final decision on accepting the article for printing. The Editor-in-Chief, in agreement with the scientific editors of individual issues, has the right to select texts according to the planned theme of the volume.
- The thematic focus of the upcoming journal issues is determined by the editorial team and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.
- The Editorial Board informs the author about the acceptance or rejection of their text for printing and provides reasons for their decision. In selected cases, the Editorial Board may allow the author to familiarize themselves with the content of the review (without revealing the reviewer's name). The Editorial Board is by no means obliged to disclose the content of the review.
- In cases where corrections are necessary in the text, a detailed review opinion (containing suggestions for corrections) is conveyed to the author through the Editorial Board, without revealing the reviewer's name. The author incorporates any changes suggested by reviewers, thematic editors, the Editor-in-Chief, and the proofreader. The Editorial Board, in agreement with the author, sets the final deadline for submitting corrected texts.
ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS:
A review must be fair, unbiased and objective; reviewers should refrain from any personal criticism and provide reasonable arguments in support of their opinions.
There should be no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the contributing author(s). If such a conflict occurs, the reviewer must immediately report it to the editorial team and return the manuscript under review.
Rejected manuscripts cannot be used by reviewers for any purposes without the express prior written consent of the editorial team. This shall also mean that the Reviewers must not use any unpublished data obtained from the papers under review in their own research.
Reviewers and editors are obliged to inform the Publisher of any fraudulent use of the intellectual property or duplicate publication. They are also obliged to inform the publisher if they suspect that an ethical violation has occurred.
Review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed to persons involved in the editorial and publishing process.