Principles of reviewing articles submitted to the "Biological and Environmental Education" quarterly
The leading editor, responsible for a given scientific discipline, decides about acceptance or rejection of a text submitted for review (and subsequently about its acceptance for print). In the first place, formal criteria are taken into consideration and initial substantive evaluation. In the case of doubts, consultations are conducted with the editor-in-chief.
All submitted texts are reviewed on the basis of the principle of a double blind sample. The editorial office ensures that the article is reviewed by a person affiliated to another scientific or research unit than the author.
We try to ensure an article in foreign languages to at least one reviewer affiliated to an institution from abroad.
Reviews are provided to the author in the form of an anonymous opinion indicating strong and weak sides of the substantive content along with a request to take a stance to the reviewers’ opinions.
Texts sent back to the editorial office by their authors after the evaluation stage should include the reviewer’s remarks.
The article – on the basis of a reviewer’s opinion accepting it conditionally on account of the necessity of introducing significant corrections – is sent once again to the same reviewers with the author’s written standpoint to such opinion.
Names of all reviewers of the Edukacja quarterly are published once a year in the paper and electronic form of the magazine.
Remarks for reviewers completing the review form
The reviewer should primarily take into account:
- clarity in problem formulation;
- quality of utilized literature on the subject;
- innovation/ originality of the proposed solution for the problem;
- conclusiveness of the text;
and should indicate drawbacks of the text (also linguistic, in particular when a text is written in English) which will allow the author to introduce reasonable corrections and determine explicitly whether the text:
- should be rejected (brief justification of such decision),
- submitted for renewed review after substantial corrections (indicate areas that require improvement; in such a situation, the text is reviewed once again by the same person);
- accepted after minor corrections (decision about publication is made by the leading editor of a division);
- accepted without corrections (which happens very rarely).