Peer Review Process

Texts can be submitted in the author’s preferred language. After the premilinary acceptance by the editorial board, they are translated (when necessary) either into Polish or English, and then approved by the Academic Board and forwarded to the reviewers.

The rules of accepting, evaluating, and the reviewing process are in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Education and Science as well as the standards of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics.

At least two independent reviewers affiliated elsewhere than with the publisher of “Sacrum et Decorum” (University of Rzeszów) or the academic institution employing the author of the publication shall be appointed to assess each article.

In the case of texts by authors with a foreign affiliation, at least one of the reviewers must be affiliated with a foreign institution other than the author’s home country and the country of their employment.

In the reviewing process, both authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities – in accordance with the double-blind-review-process principle. Apart from this practice, the editorial office selects reviewers in such a way that there is no conflict of interest between the author and the reviewer.

The rules of accepting or rejecting a publication are included in the review form, containing the basic criteria for evaluating the text, attached below: https://sacrumetdecorum.pl/recenzja/?lang=en

The review must be in writing and end with an unequivocal statement either accepting the article for publication or rejecting it.

The review procedure shall be conducted in observance of the principle of confidentiality and shall conditionally allow for the disclosure of a positive opinion containing the reviewer’s comments. They should be included in the final publication after being accepted by the reviewer.

The author receives the article for correction via e-mail and having made the indispensable corrections they send it to the Editor within 14 days of its reception.

The names of reviewers of individual articles are not revealed even after the publication of the forthcoming volume. Each issue of the annual publishes the list of reviewers co-operating in its publication, but without identifying the articles reviewed by them.