For Reviewers
Reviewer Responsibilities
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Reviewers should agree to review only if they can return the report within the agreed time frame. If their circumstances change, or they need an extension, they should inform the journal promptly. Reviewers must not intentionally delay the review process. When declining an invitation, reviewers may suggest alternative reviewers based solely on their expertise.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. Reviewers must not involve anyone else, including students or junior colleagues, in the review without the editor’s prior permission; anyone who helped should be named to the editor. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly. Confidentiality continues after the review process ends. Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it to generative AI tools or other external services.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. Reviewers should not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, gender, religious or political beliefs, institutional affiliation or other personal characteristics. Comments should be specific and constructive, and the recommendation to the editor should be consistent with the comments sent to the authors. Confidential comments to the editor must not be used to make unfounded accusations. If reviewers have assessed only part of the manuscript, they should say which part. Reviewers should be mindful that many authors do not write in their first language and should suggest improvements in clarity rather than rewrite the text in their own style. They should distinguish between additional analyses that are essential to support the conclusions and those that are optional.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers must not ask authors to cite the reviewer’s own work, or the work of their colleagues, unless there is a clear scholarly reason to do so.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious. In particular, reviewers should decline if they work at the same institution as any of the authors, or if in the past three years they have co-authored with, held a joint grant with, or acted as supervisor or mentor to any of the authors. Reviewers should also decline to review a manuscript very similar to their own work in preparation, and must not accept an invitation only to gain access to the manuscript. In double-blind review, if a reviewer suspects who the authors are and this may create a conflict of interest, they should inform the editor.
Suspected ethical violations
If reviewers suspect research or publication misconduct, such as data fabrication or manipulation, plagiarism or duplicate submission, they should inform the editor confidentially and should not investigate the matter themselves.
After the review
Reviewers are encouraged to assess revised versions of manuscripts they have reviewed. If, after submitting their report, they become aware of information that could change their assessment, they should inform the journal. These responsibilities are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Ethical standards
The full ethical standards for editors, reviewers and authors are set out in the Editorial Policy: Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement. The peer review process is described in the Peer review section.
Review Form
In order to prepare the article in the best possible way, pay attention to the issues of your manuscript subject to the reviewers’ assessment. The form (implemented in the ScholarOne system) of original research paper is presented below and is also available as a PDF (Review Form):
Please state any conflict(s) of interest that you have in relation to the review of this paper (state “none” if this is not applicable):
• Abstract: Is abstract structured in accordance with the requirements of the Journal?
• Motivation and contribution: Does the paper contain new and significant information that improve or build on existing research? What is theoretical, empirical and/or practical contribution of the paper?
• Literature: Does the paper present an adequate understanding of the relevant literature and refer to literature sources in the right way?
• Methodology: Is the paper’s idea built on an appropriate conceptual background? Is the research design and methods employed appropriate? Are the data sources and methods described in enough detail to allow the results to be replicated?
• Findings: Are the results presented in a clear way, highlighting the novelty in the context of existing research?
• Quality of Communication: Is the paper written in a clear way for readers and the used terminology is appropriate?
• Declarations: Does the manuscript include the statements on conflict of interest and on the use of generative AI? Are they adequate and consistent with the content of the paper? (Required for manuscripts submitted from November 2026.)
• Research ethics: If the study involves human participants, are there any ethical concerns (e.g. regarding consent or personal data)? If you suspect any research or publication misconduct, please describe it in the confidential comments to the editor.
General Comments to the Author:
Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript? Yes / No
*Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Confidential Comments to the Editor
Acknowledgments to our reviewers
Any scientific journal cannot function properly, unless it is assisted by reviewers. The editors are aware of the fact that an adequate assessment of the academic excellence of manuscripts received calls for a much broader perspective than that they can provide themselves. Therefore, we gratefully acknowledge the support of our referees. It seems to us that these double-blind peer reviews are appreciated by the authors too, as they allow for improving their texts significantly. The list of reviewers is published annually: List of reviewers.
Reviewers do not receive remuneration for their work. If you have any questions about a review, please contact the Editorial Office at ceej@uw.edu.pl.
