Skip to content

Academic journal

Standards for reviewers

“Review of Enforcement Law” has an established academic review procedure based on the double-blind review model (double-blind review). This procedure is designed to ensure the high academic quality of published articles, the objectivity of the assessment, and compliance with the principles of publication ethics.

Standards for reviewers

  1. The editorial board of the journal “Review of Enforcement Law” makes every effort to apply the highest publication standards in accordance with ethical requirements and to ensure the highest substantive level of the journal.
  2. All texts submitted to “Review of Enforcement Law” are subject to editorial evaluation by the editorial board of the journal.
  3. The evaluation of a text that is not a review of another publication or a report is carried out as part of a scientific review process. Two independent reviewers affiliated outside the scientific unit from which the author(s) of the text originate are appointed to evaluate the text. All aspects of scientific craftsmanship are subject to evaluation.
  4. The text review process is conducted according to the double-blind review process model, in which the author of the text and the reviewers do not know each other’s identities.
  5. Reviewers should meet the following requirements:
    • no conflict of interest with the author of the text (a conflict of interest is considered to be a direct personal relationship between the reviewer and the author: second-degree kinship, legal ties, marriage or professional subordination);
    • hold at least a postdoctoral degree (doctor habilitated);
    • possess the necessary knowledge to assess the quality of a given text.
  6. Members of the journal’s Editorial Board may not serve as reviewers.
  7. Reviewers who accept an invitation to review a manuscript are requested to submit their review within two weeks. This period may be extended at the reviewer’s request.
  8. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality in their opinions on the reviewed article and not to use the knowledge gained in this process before its publication.
  9. Appropriate agreements are concluded with reviewers.
  10. The review is in written form (the editorial office provides an appropriate review form in Polish or English) and may take the form of: a positive review, a positive review subject to specific changes, or a negative review. Reviews are archived by the publisher.
  11. The editorial office informs the author of the text about the conclusion of the review.
  12. The reviewer’s comments are forwarded to the author of the text. Rational and justified conclusions of the review are binding on the author. The author is obliged to take into account the reviewers’ recommendations and correct the text. If the author of the text does not agree with the reviewer’s conclusions, they have the right to present their position to the Editorial Board of the journal.
  13. A positive opinion expressed by two reviewers is a prerequisite for the publication of a scientific text in “Review of Enforcement Law”.
  14. The review process complies with the recommendations of the study “Good practices in review procedures in science” (Warsaw, 2011) and COPE standards.
  15. The reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed. The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal is published in the journal and posted on the journal’s website once a year.
numbers

Check us out

Looking for some interesting content on enforcement proceedings? We’ve got it. As we value the variety of perspectives, we have both theoreticians and practitioners writing for us. And we want to reach out to you, too.

Currenda Online Shop
currendaCircle

Currenda reading room

Access knowledge on protective and enforcement proceedings digitally.

Go to the website
numbers