For reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

These Guidelines set out the responsibilities of reviewers involved in evaluating materials submitted to journals and other publications of the University of Warsaw.

They should be read together with the University of Warsaw Publishing Ethics and Integrity Policy and with the specific peer-review procedures of the relevant journal, series, or publishing unit.

The principles concerning reviewers' roles and responsibilities draw on recommendations of the Council of Science Editors (CSE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Responsibilities towards Authors

Reviewers should:

• keep information concerning the review process confidential;
• provide written, unbiased, and constructive feedback in a timely manner;
• assess the originality, accuracy, relevance, and linguistic quality of the work.

2. Responsibilities towards Editors

Reviewers should:

• respond promptly to invitations to review;
• disclose conflicts of interest and report any ethical concerns, bias, suspected plagiarism, or other irregularities identified;
• provide constructive criticism;
• indicate ways in which the manuscript could be improved.

3. Responsibilities towards Readers

Reviewers should check whether the methods and analyses described in the manuscript allow the research presented to be validated.

They should also assess whether the cited literature is relevant to the subject and up to date.

4. Confidentiality and Protection of Submitted Materials

Materials submitted for review are treated as confidential throughout the editorial process until publication. Reviewers must also maintain the confidentiality of information concerning the review process itself.

Reviewers should protect the manuscript and its components against unauthorised disclosure, misappropriation, and plagiarism. This protection also extends to research ideas contained in unpublished material.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose potential conflicts of interest when agreeing to review a manuscript. Disclosure also applies to a conflict that was not previously known and is identified only after publication.

Conflicts may arise, for example, from financial or personal relationships with authors, family relationships, employment, consultancy, honoraria, or funding.

Where a concern about a conflict of interest is raised, the manuscript is assigned to another reviewer or editor. The review process and editorial decisions should remain independent of the relationships giving rise to the conflict and should be based on the quality of the work.

6. Preparing and Submitting a Review

Reviews must be submitted in writing. They should be accompanied by a declaration of potential conflicts of interest.

Where double-blind peer review is used, with the identities of authors and reviewers withheld from each other, reviewers should inform the editorial office whether they have discovered the identity of the author or authors.

Detailed information about the review form and the method of submitting the review is provided by the relevant editorial office or publishing unit.

7. The Review and the Publication Decision

The review forms part of the manuscript evaluation process. The final publication decision rests with the appropriate editor or authorised body identified in the policies of the relevant publication.

If a review is unsatisfactory, the editors may invite additional reviewers or discuss the matter internally.

Evaluation and decisions should be impartial, independent, and based on the quality of the submitted material.

8. Independent Assessment in Specific Circumstances

Materials authored by editors, editorial board members, or other persons associated with a publication should undergo the standard peer-review procedure conducted by persons who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.

An author holding an editorial position should not manage the evaluation of their own work. The assessment process and publication decision should be entrusted to another, independent editor.

Special issues and supplements are subject to the standard peer-review procedure. Supplementary materials may also be referred for review, depending on their nature.

9. Reporting Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should inform the editorial office of any irregularities or suspected breaches of publication ethics identified.

Concerns may include plagiarism, data falsification, manipulation of figures, tables, or citations, use of materials without the required permission, unethical use of AI, authorship and contribution problems, peer-review manipulation, or concealed conflicts of interest.

Concerns may be reported both before and after publication. The editors, working with the publisher, take steps to investigate the matter with reference to the relevant COPE guidance.

10. Complaints about the Publishing Process

Reviewers may submit complaints concerning editorial decisions, published materials, the review procedure, delays, unethical conduct, and the actions of the editorial team, editorial board, publisher, or other reviewers.

A complaint should be addressed to the appropriate editorial office, Editor-in-Chief, editorial board, or publishing unit, using the contact details provided by the publication. The party handling the matter checks whether the appropriate procedures have been followed and informs the complainant of the outcome in writing.

11. Publication-Specific Procedures

The review model, number of reviewers, types of material subject to external review, review forms, and decision-making arrangements are determined by the relevant journal, series, or publishing unit.

These procedures also specify which types of material are not subject to external review. Reviewers should familiarise themselves with the procedure applicable to the material they have received.

Where a journal publishes a list of reviewers, the list does not disclose information linking individual reviewers to the articles they have reviewed.

Contact

Questions about a specific invitation, manuscript, review form, or editorial procedure should be addressed to the relevant editorial office, academic editor, or publishing unit.

General questions concerning publication ethics at the University of Warsaw may be addressed to:

Research Services Office
E-mail: ja.lewczuk@uw.edu.pl