Czasopisma Naukowe w Sieci (CNS)

Reviewers

1. prof. Grażyna Szczygieł (University of Bialystok)

2. prof. Barbara Stańdo-Kawecka (Jagiellonian University)

3. prof. Stefan Lelental (University of Lodz)

4. prof. Wojciech Zalewski (University of Gdansk)

5. prof. Grzegorz Wiciński (University of Lodz)

6. prof. Jerzy Lachowski (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun)

7. prof. Andrzej Bisztyga (University of Zielona Gora)

8. prof. Tadeusz Dmochowski (University of Gdansk)

9. prof. Andrzej Korybski (Maria Curie-Sklodowska University)

 

 

 

Review procedure

 

1. All submissions undergo preliminary formal and substantive assessment by the Editorial Board. If an article is in line with the profile of the Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego journal and fulfils the requirements listed in the “Information for Authors”, it passes to the next stage of the procedure.

2. The editorial assistant sends the submissions to two reviewers for assessment.

3. The Editorial Board selects the reviewers from among specialists in a given field, taking into account the subject editor’s suggestion. A reviewer may come from the Editorial Board’s list of regular reviewers or from outside the list. The selected reviewers must guarantee independence as well as a lack of conflict of interests with the authors (no direct personal relationship, professional subordination and direct scholarly collaboration over the last two years preceding the writing of the review).

4. In the case of foreign language submissions one of the reviewers is, if possible, a person affiliated to an institution in a country other than the country in which the author of the submission lives or works.

5. The reviews are doubly anonymous: the reviewers and the authors do not know their identities (double-blind review). Information about the reviewer can be declassified only in the case of a negative review or an article containing controversial elements, following the author’s request, if the reviewer in question agrees to reveal this information.

6. The reviewers should take into account the substantive value of the articles under review, in particular their originality and scholarly value as well as whether they tackle new research problems. What is also evaluated is the formal side of each submission.

7. Reviews are made in written form. Each review should contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article in question should or should not be accepted for publication. The review may contain a conclusion whereby the article may be accepted for publication after the author has fulfilled specific conditions (after introducing corrections or additions). The author responds to the review in writing.

8. A submission is accepted for publication after both reviewers have testified to its high substantive quality, in particular, its originality.

9. If the conclusions of the two reviews diverge, the Editorial Committee decides whether the article should be accepted for publication. In such a case the opinion of a super-reviewer may also be referred to.

10. The Editorial Board reserves the right to propose, on the basis of its own or the reviewers’ opinions, corrections to be introduced by the author on which will depend the final decision concerning publication.

11. A list of regular reviewers is published by the Editorial Board once a year in Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego and online. The list is published in alphabetical order.

12. The article review procedure complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in the document “Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science”, Warsaw 2011.

 

 

 

                                                                              REVIEW FORM

for an article to be published in Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego (New Codification of Criminal Law)

 

Article title:

................................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Please write your review, taking into account, in particular, the criteria indicated below, marking your choice.

 

 

Evaluation criteria:

No (no additions possible)

Requires corrections or additions

 

Yes

 

Is the subject tackled in the article relevant enough in cognitive terms?

 

 

 

 

Is the article original in comparison with existing publications?

 

 

 

Does the article bring anything new to the literature on the subject or

opens up new research perspectives?

 

 

 

Is the author’s selection of literature correct in substantive terms and does it include the most recent publications?

 

 

 

 

Is the literature correctly cited?

 

 

 

Are the methods used by the author appropriate to the subject matter?

 

 

 

Is the content presented in a clear and

logical manner?

 

 

 

Is the article linguistically correct (adequate terminology, clarity for the reader, quality of the language)?

 

 

 

Does the title match the content?

 

 

 

Is the article scholarly in nature?

 

 

 

 

In a separate annex (page two of the form) please present any detailed remarks you might have in connection with your assessment as well as suggested changes.

 

The article I have reviewed (please mark the right opinion):

 

is suitable for publication

is suitable for publication after the Reviewer’s remarks have been taken into account

 

is not suitable for publication

 

 

 

 

The information about the Reviewer is confidential. It can be declassified only in the case of a negative review or an article containing controversial elements, following the Author’s request, if the Reviewer in question agrees to reveal this information. Please find attached to the review form a description of the review procedure for Nowa Kodyfikacja Prawa Karnego.

 

Reviewer’s name and surname ………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reviewer’s affiliation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

                                                                          Review date…………………………………………

                                                                          Reviewer’s signature……………………………

 

 

 

 

zamknij

Twoj koszyk (produkty: 0)

Brak produktów w koszyku

Twój koszyk Do kasy