Author Guidelines

Navigating the journey from submission to publication in Ekonomia i Prawo. Economics and Law involves a structured process designed to ensure the quality, relevance, and academic integrity of the articles presented. The comprehensive publication process outlined below underscores our commitment to maintaining high standards and fostering scholarly contributions.Author should submit article by the use of APCZ platform.

1. Authors are required to submit their articles using the APCZ platform.

2. Authors should submit three separate files:

• the main text of the article,
• the title page,
• Authors Declaration Form.

3. Authors, in their comments to the editors, may propose up to three reviewers in accordance with the reviewer policy.

4. Submissions are initially checked to ensure adherence to the formal standards of the journal, including conformity to the journal template and alignment with the journal's aim.

• • If the article does not align with the journal's aim, it will be rejected.
  • The author may either receive a list of revisions, or their article will be forwarded to the subject editor.

5. The submission undergoes review by the subject editor. Two possible outcomes at this stage include:

• The proposed article may be rejected due to low quality of scientific work and a lack of academic standards.
• The proposed article is sent to reviewers.

6. Reviewers can assess the article in the following ways:

• The article should be published without any changes.
• The article should be published with proposed changes.
• The article should be rejected.

7. If one of the two reviewers rejects the article, it will be rejected.

8. Proposed changes and remarks from reviewers will be sent to authors, who are expected to respond to them.

9. After authors modify the article based on the feedback, the subject editor may:

• Send the article for the next round of reviews.
• Accept the article for publication.

10. After acceptance of the article, the fee should be paid.

11. Articles that are accepted for publication and paid for will be published.

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Authors have the opportunity to challenge an editorial decision if they believe it was made due to a significant misunderstanding of a core aspect of their manuscript, a failure to recognize its contribution to the literature, or concerns regarding the manuscript-handling process. Differences in opinion regarding the novelty or significance of the reported findings are not considered valid grounds for appeal. To initiate an appeal, please contact the journal via email and provide an explanation for your appeal. The appeal will be discussed by the entire editorial team at the next editorial meeting. The editor's decision following an appeal consideration is final.

REVIEWER RECOMMENDATION POLICY

Authors are encouraged to suggest up to three potential reviewers for their manuscript. These recommendations should adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Independence: Suggested reviewers must have no conflicts of interest or close associations with the authors (e.g., no recent collaborations, shared affiliations, or personal relationships).
2. Diversity: Whenever possible, suggested reviewers should represent diverse perspectives, including affiliations from different countries or regions.

For each recommended reviewer, authors must provide a brief justification explaining their expertise and suitability to review the submitted work.

In addition, the following elements apply:

1. Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest: Authors must ensure that the suggested reviewers do not have any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest. This includes but is not limited to: recent co-authorship on publications, joint research projects or grants, or hierarchical relationships (e.g., current or former mentors/supervisors).
2. Exclusion of Specific Reviewers: Authors may request that certain individuals not be invited to review their work. Such requests must include a clear rationale, such as a documented conflict of interest or prior history that might compromise an impartial review. The editorial team will consider these requests but is not obligated to honor them.
3. Expertise of Suggested Reviewers: Recommended reviewers should possess demonstrated expertise in the relevant field of research. Authors are encouraged to highlight specific qualifications or achievements (e.g., significant publications, specialized knowledge) that make the suggested reviewers suitable candidates.
4. Contact Information: To facilitate the review process, authors should provide accurate and up-to-date contact information for each suggested reviewer, including institutional affiliation and email address.