Neophilological Studies.

Linguistic studies

Principles of reviewing

Basic principles of reviewing articles in Neophilological Studies. Linguistic Studies:

• Each text is reviewed by two independent reviewers from outside the unit.
• An external reviewer is a person who is not a member of the Scientific Council of the journal, not employed in the editorial office of the journal or at Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa.
• The so-called "double-blind review process" is used (the author and reviewer do not know their identities during the review process).
• The reviewer signs a declaration that there is no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author, resulting from direct personal relationships (marriage, kinship up to the second degree, legal relationships, conflict), professional subordination relationships or direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
• Reviews are in writing and end with an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article should be allowed for publication or rejected. Any instructions of the reviewer are communicated to the Author through the scientific editor or the secretary of the editorial board.
• The names of reviewers of individual publications and issues of the journal are not disclosed, once a year the journal publishes on its website a list of cooperating reviewers.

Rules for qualifying publications for printing:

• All texts (including their reviews) are presented to the editor-in-chief, who makes a preliminary or final decision on whether to qualify for printing or reject the submitted text. The editor-in-chief may seek additional opinion from the thematic editor.
• The thematic editor verifies the texts in terms of content, paying attention m.in terminology, spelling of surnames, bibliography. Articles should contain the same components with a homogeneous layout and nomenclature (especially bibliographies, footnotes, annexes and summaries).
• The text is sent to print in case of two unequivocally positive reviews. If one of the reviews is negative, the Editorial Board decides to send the text to the third reviewer in order to obtain an additional opinion on the submitted text. In the case of two negative reviews, the text is not qualified for printing.
• The authors of the qualified texts make any corrections and additions within the time limit set by the editors and send by e-mail to the editor's address a corrected version of the text, which is again verified by the thematic editor of the volume.
• Texts that have not been corrected in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers are not qualified for printing.
• Information about the lack of acceptance of the submitted text is provided to the Authors by e-mail.
• Delays resulting from the Author's fault (e.g. related to the improvement of the text in accordance with the recommendations of reviewers) may result in postponing the date of publication of a given article to the next issue of the journal.