For authors

Review procedures

Scientific monographs, textbooks, scripts, notebooks in the Student Debuts series and scientific journals published by the Publishing House of the Wroclaw University of Economics & Business undergo a review process in accordance with the review procedures adopted by the Publishing House, based on general regulations and recommendations, as well as internal orders and recommendations. The review process is documented, and all documents are archived.
Reviewers of scientific publications are specialists in a given scientific discipline or related disciplines in a given field of science, holding a scientific degree and not being employees of Wroclaw University of Economics & Business. Reviewers of notebooks in the Student Debuts series can be employees of the Wroclaw University of Economics & Business.
The editor-in-chief of the Publishing House appoints reviewers of scientific monographs, textbooks, scripts, notebooks in the Student Debuts series, following the list of proposed reviewers included in the letter addressed to the Publishing House by the head of the department. In the case of monographs that form the basis of an application for a scientific title, the letter is addressed to the Publisher by the interested party himself. For the publications listed below, the list of proposed reviewers includes:
- Jubilee monographs – the names of 4 people, from which one reviewer is selected,
- Monographs that are the basis for applying for a scientific title – the names of 5 people, from which 2 reviewers are selected,
- Monographs shown as a major achievement in the promotion proceedings – names of 5 people, from among whom 2 reviewers are selected,
- Scientific monographs – the names of 4 people, from which one reviewer is selected,
- Textbooks – names of 4 people, from which 2 reviewers are selected,
- scripts – the names of 4 people, from among whom one reviewer is selected,
- Student Debuts – names of 4 people, from which 2 reviewers are selected.
The review is performed in single-blind mode: the author/editor does not know the name of the reviewer, and only the management of the Publishing House communicates with the review candidates.
The selection of reviewers for articles published in scientific journals published by the Publisher is the responsibility of the editorial committee of the respective journal. The reviewer is proposed by a member of the editorial committee and approved by the editor-in-chief.
There is no conflict of interest between the author of the publication and the reviewer, which is considered direct personal relationships (kinship, legal ties, conflict), relationships of professional subordination and direct scientific cooperation.
The review is in writing and ends with an unequivocal conclusion on whether the work is accepted for publication or rejected. The review should be fair and objective, and the final assessment should be justified. The reviewer is obliged to disclose possible plagiarism, suspected plagiarism or unnecessary (duplicate) publication, as well as deficiencies in citation (manipulation of data).
The editor-in-chief, after reviewing the review, forwards it to the author. The author is obliged to correct the work in accordance with the reviewer’s comments and to respond in writing to the content of the review.
The publisher provides the reviewer with the author’s response to the content of the review.
In a situation where a paper has not been recommended for publication, after the author has made the changes proposed by the reviewer, it is referred again to the reviewer. After reviewing the revised version of the paper, the reviewer makes the final decision on whether to accept it for publication or reject it.
It is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of the Publishing House to approve the work for further stages of the publishing process.
The editor-in-chief of the editorial committee of a given journal makes the final decision on whether to accept an article, reject it or refer it to a third review, and submits the relevant explanations to the editor-in-chief of the Publishing House.
The review process is confidential in accordance with data protection rules. Only those handling the review process and deciding whether or not to accept the paper for publication have access to the reviews.

Regulations

Law on Copyright and Related Rights. Journal of Laws of Republic of Poland 1994, no. 24, item. 83
Ordinance of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of September 20, 2018. On de minimis aid under the “Support for scientific journals” program. Journal of Laws of Republic of Poland 2018, pos. 1832
Ordinance of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of November 7, 2018. On compiling lists of publications of scientific monographs and scientific journals and peer-reviewed materials of international conferences. Journal of Laws of Republic of Poland 2018, pos. 2152
Ordinance of the Minister of Science and Higher Education dated February 22, 2019. On the evaluation of the quality of scientific activity. Journal of Laws of Republic of Poland 2019, pos. 392
Good practices in review procedures in science developed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education

Recommendations