Review process
Review process
The review procedure is conducted according to the following principles:
- At least two independent reviewers, who are not members of the scientific unit affiliated to the author of the publication, shall be appointed to evaluate each publication.
- Author(s) of publications and reviews do not know their identity (so-called “double-blind review process”), otherwise the reviewer signs a declaration of interest.
- the review is written and contains the express request of the reviewer to allow or reject the article for publication.
- the names of the reviewers of the individual publications or issues of the journal are not published
- the summary list of reviewers is published once a year in the second issue of the journal
Review rules. Responsibilities of the Author, Reviewers and Editors
Editors of Studia Iuridica Toruniensia applies the principles of publication ethics as set out in the Code of Conduct adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Standards of ethical behaviour apply to all who may be involved in the publication process.
Authors submit declarations regarding the originality of the submitted text, their ownership of copyrights, and lack of any adverse phenomena such as ghost writing or guest authorship.
If it is revealed that the author of a publication has acted unethically (e.g. by plagiarism or by re-publishing a previously published work or part of it), the Editor-in-Chief will ask the author to provide an explanation before taking the steps provided for in the COPE guidelines.
Reviewers prepare reviews that significantly support the editorial process in the decision-making process regarding the publication of the paper.
Reviews should be carried out in an objective manner, with criticism of substantive and formal issues rather than personal ones. Reviewers are obliged to clearly express their opinions. The theses formulated by reviewers should be supported with arguments.
Before undertaking a review, reviewers assess whether with a view to the subject matter of the study and the proposed time of the review they are able to properly fulfil their duty. The reviewer's data is not disclosed - the review is prepared on the basis of a double blind peer review.
The Editor-in-Chief together with the Editorial Board decides which of the submitted articles will be directed to further editorial work (in particular - submitted for review).
Neither the Editor-in-Chief nor any of the Editorial Board members will disclose any information about the submitted work to persons who are not involved in the editorial procedure.
All those involved in the editorial process are obliged to report any case of a conflict of interest.
Ghostwriting and guest authorship
In order to ensure the highest possible scientific reliability the Editorial Team of the Studia Iuridica Toruniensia implemented a procedure to counteract illegal practices such as ghostwriting and guest authorship.
„Ghostwriting” - the situation where a person has made a significant contribution to the publication and their name is not mentioned among the authors or in the acknowledgements. „Guest authorship” - the situation where a person is mentioned as the author/co-author of a publication although their contribution is insignificant or nil.
The editors require authors of publications to disclose the contribution of individual authors to the publication (including their affiliations and contributions, i.e. information on who authored the concepts, assumptions, methods, protocol, etc. used in the preparation of the publication, with the primary responsibility lying with the author submitting the manuscript).
The editors clarify that "ghostwriting", "guest authorship" are manifestations of scientific dishonesty, and any cases detected will be disclosed, including notification of the relevant entities (authors' employing institutions, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).
The editors require information about the sources of funding for the publication, contributions from scientific research institutions, associations and other entities ("financial disclosure").
The editors document all manifestations of scientific dishonesty, especially violations of the principles of ethics in science.
Authors of submitted texts are required to submit a copyright licence statement. The statement also includes a declaration regarding ghostwriting and guest authorship (TEXT SUBMISSION).
Anti-plagiarism system
In order to ensure the authenticity and high quality of the articles published, the journal follows a modern procedure for evaluating them and belongs to the CrossCheck system. CrossCheck is an initiative created by CrossRef and iThenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/) and was established to provide professional assistance in preventing the publication of plagiarism and other forms of scientific dishonesty.
Publication
Submissions to the editorial board are published after review and approval by the Editorial Team. All papers accepted for publication are subject to editing and proofreading. The procedure for reviewing the manuscript and publication consists of the following stages:
1) Initial acceptance and internal review
An article submitted for publication is first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief. If the article meets the editorial requirements and has been positively verified in the anti-plagiarism system, it is forwarded to a member of the Editorial Team for a preliminary assessment as to the compatibility of the Work with the nature and aims of the journal. This stage takes approximately two weeks.
2) Review
Following initial approval, the Editorial Team identifies external reviewers. The review is conducted under the double-blind review principle. The names of the reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed.
The submitted article is assessed by at least two specialists in the field to which it relates. Depending on the volume of the article, this stage takes approximately five weeks.
The reviewer prepares the review electronically within his or her individual account on the journal website https://apcz.umk.pl/SIT and uploads it to the journal system. The journal system does not allow identification of both the author of the manuscript and the reviewer.
The reviewer within the journal system is given individual access to the author's text file. The author text file provided to the reviewer does not allow identification of the author's identity.
The review contains one of the following conclusions:
- I recommend publication of the article;
- I recommend publication of the article, with minor corrections;
- I recommend that the article be sent back to the author for major corrections and that publication be considered once these have been incorporated;
- I recommend rejection of the article.
In debatable situations, or in the case of incompatible reviews, admission to publication is decided by the Editor who may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.
3) Responding to reviewers' comments and suggestions
Upon receipt of the reviews, their content is communicated to the author without revealing the identity of the reviewers. The author responds to the reviewers' comments and suggestions and sends the final version of the article within the deadline agreed with the Editor.
The author of the text is obliged to respond substantively to all comments and conclusions made in the review.
4) Publication
Only those works which have received two positive reviews are accepted for publication.
In the case of conditional reviews, the editors may publish the work if the author makes the changes indicated by the reviewer to the text.
The decision to publish the text rests with the Editorial Board and is communicated to the Author once the decision has been made. The Editor-in-Chief indicates the volume in which the work will be published.
