REVIEW PROCESS
Fair, impartial, competent, insightful and constructive peer review is essential for maintaining the quality of articles submitted for publication in our journal. At Sacrum et Decorum, we employ a double-blind external peer review procedure, which means that authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors at the time of review. Each submitted academic article is assessed by at least two independent reviewers from different academic institutions, other than the one with which the author is affiliated. The names of those collaborating with the editorial team on the review process are published once a year on the Sacrum et Decorum website and on the editorial page of the printed version of the journal. Editors of Sacrum et Decorum submitting their own texts to the journal are completely excluded from all stages of the review process. The review process described below applies to academic articles. Internally reviewed articles (book reviews, memoirs, artistic self-presentations) are marked as unreviewed on the website.
The evaluation criteria and the review process for texts submitted to the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum comply with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the standards of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Poland.
1. STAGES OF THE REVIEW PROCESS
1.1 The editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum conducts an initial selection of submitted academic texts and their internal review within 30 days of the submission date. Articles may be selected for external review, returned to the authors for necessary revisions, or rejected.
1.2 Following the internal review, the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum forwards the articles for external review. In accordance with editorial policy and publication ethics, the editorial board seeks out and invites competent reviewers specialising in the subject matter of the article.
1.3 Articles are subject to a double-blind external peer review process. The review process takes 30 days. In certain cases, it may be extended due to unforeseen circumstances.
1.4 Reviewers assess the text using the standard form, taking into account:
- the originality of the topic in relation to the current state of research,
- the appropriateness of the methodology employed,
- the logic and quality of the argumentation.
1.5 The review must include a conclusion in which the reviewer recommends acceptance of the text for publication, return for revision, or rejection. In the event of conflicting recommendations, the editorial board seeks a third reviewer, whom it invites to review the article.
1.6 The decision to accept a manuscript for publication, to send it back for revision, or to reject it is taken jointly by the editorial board on the basis of:
- the quality of the manuscript and the research presented therein,
- the reviewers’ opinions,
- the significance of the article for the academic community and the readership of Sacrum et Decorum,
- applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
1.7 The editorial board provides authors with its own comments as well as the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, whilst ensuring that the principle of anonymity is maintained. Authors are required to return the revised versions of their texts to the editorial board within 14 days via the OJS platform or by email to: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
2. SELECTION OF REVIEWERS
2.1 The editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum selects reviewers based on their competence and research interests. We ask reviewers to express their honest, reliable and constructive opinion on the reviewed text, written with respect for the author, containing an objective assessment of the article's strengths and weaknesses, including suggestions for further work, which the editorial board will forward to the author, while maintaining anonymity.
2.2 We strive to select reviewers in such a way as to avoid any potential conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author that could hinder or prevent a fair and impartial assessment of the text. We oblige reviewers to immediately notify the editorial board if they discover any conflict of interest and to refrain from reviewing the text and related materials until the procedure has been agreed with the editorial board.
2.3 The editorial board selects two reviewers for each article, or three if necessary (in the event of extremely divergent opinions). Reviewers must be recognised researchers who are specialists in the subject matter of the article. Reviewers must not be current colleagues of the author(s), nor must they have published with any of the authors or co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years. Reviewers must be from institutions other than that of the author(s) of the text. The editorial board may select reviewers from among authors frequently cited in the article. The author may indicate a limited number of researchers who should not review the article (up to three named individuals or institutions); such exclusions will be honoured.
3. GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
We kindly ask reviewers of articles submitted to *Sacrum et Decorum* to read and accept the following guidelines.
RULES FOR REVIEWERS OF SACRUM ET DECORUM
3.1 Reviewers are required to inform the editorial board immediately of any potential conflict of interest when assessing a text submitted to them.
3.2 Anyone unable to produce a review for substantive, time-related, or unforeseen reasons, or wishing to withdraw from the review process, should notify the journal’s editorial board of this fact as soon as possible and without undue delay.
3.3 Reviewers are obliged to strictly observe the principle of confidentiality throughout the entire text evaluation process.
3.4 Reviewers are required to evaluate the text objectively. Reviewers must not engage in personal criticism of the author or express subjective opinions. The review must be in writing. It should be clearly written and conclude with an unambiguous statement either accepting the article for publication or rejecting it. The assessment of the article should include a precisely formulated justification.
3.5 It is the reviewers’ responsibility to identify publications that the author has not cited or referred to in their article. Reviewers assist the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and may also help the author to revise the manuscript – through the editorial office and whilst maintaining mutual anonymity.
3.6 Reviewers should inform the editorial team of any significant similarity, partial overlap of the content of the work under review with any other published work known to them, or any suspicion of plagiarism.
3.7 A reviewer must not use the text under review for any purpose other than reviewing. Information and ideas obtained during the review process are confidential and must not be used by the reviewer for their own purposes.
3.8 The reviewer agrees to the disclosure of their name on the list of reviewers published annually.
TEXT EVALUATION CRITERIA:
The rules for accepting or rejecting a publication are set out in the review form, which contains the basic criteria for evaluating the text. Reviewers should pay particular attention to:
Does the work meet the requirements for original creative works?
Are the title and abstract of the work appropriate to its content?
Do the interpretation of the results and conclusions correspond to the results presented?
Is the structure of the work correct and clear?
Are the language and style of the work correct?
Are the tables and figures necessary?
Is the literature cited correctly and sufficiently?
4. RULES FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW (double-blind peer review)
4.1 We uphold the confidentiality of the review process. Submitted manuscripts are anonymised prior to review. At all stages of the review process, the author and the reviewer do not know each other’s identities, which remain strictly protected by the editorial team. Reviewers may not use the manuscripts under review in any unauthorised manner.
4.2 We provide reviewers with the substantive and ethical principles of reviewing (based on COPE guidelines), to which they agree by accepting a manuscript for review. We require reviewers to report any breaches of research or publication ethics by editors or authors to the editorial board without delay. At the same time, the editorial board undertakes to pay attention to warning signs that may indicate fraud or manipulation in reviews, or the unauthorised use of reviewed texts by reviewers – any such report will be investigated and resolved in accordance with COPE recommendations.
4.3 Following the publication of the electronic version of Sacrum et Decorum (in accordance with the calendar in October of each year), we publish a list of reviewers on the journal’s website. The list of reviewers is also included on the editorial page of the print edition of the journal.
4.4 Editors of Sacrum et Decorum who submit their own texts are completely excluded from all stages of the review process.
5. DECISION ON THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF A SUBMISSION
5.1 The decision to accept a text for publication, to refer it for revision, or to reject it is taken jointly by the editorial team on the basis of:
- the quality of the text and the research presented therein,
- the reviewers’ opinions,
- the significance of the article for the academic community and the readership of Sacrum et Decorum,
- applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
5.2 The final decision on whether to accept or reject an article will be communicated to the author without undue delay.
5.3 If a text is sent back for revision, the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum will provide authors with its own comments, as well as the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, whilst ensuring anonymity.
5.4 Authors are required to return revised versions of their texts, incorporating the comments or suggestions of the editors and reviewers, to the editorial board within 14 days of receiving the decision, via the OJS platform or by email to: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
6. APPEALS
6.1 Authors may appeal against the editorial board’s decision to reject a manuscript.
6.2 Appeals are treated as a secondary matter in relation to the editorial board’s normal workflow – please allow approximately two months for a decision.
6.3 Only one appeal is permitted per manuscript.
6.4 An appeal may only be lodged after the reviews and the editorial team’s decision have been received.
6.5 Final decisions on appeals will be made by a panel consisting of the Editor-in-Chief and two members of the Scientific Council.
6.7 As a result of an appeal, decisions are overturned only if two members of the appeals panel are convinced that the original decision constituted a serious error on the part of the editorial board or reviewers. An appeal is justified if the reviewers or editorial board members have made significant errors, shown bias, or breached the principles of publication ethics.
