Peer review processed

The review procedure used in the journal “Studies in Theological Sciences” complies with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education contained in the publication Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science (Warsaw 2011) and in the Announcement of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of June 2, 2015, on the criteria and procedure for the evaluation of scientific journals.

Before agreeing to prepare a review, reviewers are required to familiarize themselves with the Principles of Ethics for Reviewers, available at:
https://journals.pan.pl/snt → Principles of Publication Ethics.

Upon receipt of an article submitted for the Articles or Varia sections, the Editorial Board conducts a preliminary assessment of the text to determine whether it should be accepted for further processing or rejected. The author may be asked to provide missing information in the submission.

After a positive preliminary qualification, the Editorial Board initiates the review process, sending the article to two independent reviewers and immediately informing the author of this decision. The list of reviewers is not fixed; reviewers are selected according to the subject matter of the submitted text, ensuring that they are experts in the relevant field.

The review process is anonymous – both the reviewer and the author remain unaware of each other’s identity (double-blind review).

By accepting the text for review, the reviewer undertakes to complete it within the designated timeframe. After evaluating the article, the reviewer completes a review form, assessing the text both from a formal perspective (structure, language, style, references) and a substantive perspective (soundness of argumentation, originality, and completeness of theses).

The reviewer should justify their assessment and provide recommendations to the author. The review must contain a clear conclusion in the form of one of the following recommendations:

• acceptance of the article,

• rejection, or

• revision required (returning the text to the author for corrections and additions).

Two reviews with negative recommendations result in the rejection of the article. In cases of significant discrepancies between the first two reviews, the Editorial Board refers the article to a third reviewer, whose opinion is decisive for the final outcome.

Based on the reviews, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the article for publication, reject it, or return it for revision. The author is promptly informed of the decision and is given access to the review reports. In response to substantial reviewer comments, the author should provide detailed explanations and implement all necessary revisions.

All communication between authors and reviewers takes place exclusively through the Editorial Board.

In consultation with the author, the Editorial Board carries out stylistic and linguistic proofreading of the accepted article to produce the final version ready for publication.

Materials published in the Reviews and Reports sections are not strictly scientific articles and are therefore, as a rule, not subject to external peer review, although they may be reviewed when deemed appropriate. The decision to publish or reject such materials rests with the Editorial Board.