FOR REVIEWERS

Principles of article reviews in the journal Acta Albaruthenica

1. Texts submitted for publication are subject to initial verification in terms of their compliance with the journal’s profile and compliance with the editorial requirements adopted by the Editorial Board.

2. The texts meeting the criteria mentioned in point 1, after initial approval by the Editorial Board, are sent to two reviewers from outside the university (research institution) where the Author is employed. Opinions are prepared by specialists in the field of the submitted work.

3. The identity of the author of the reviewed text is not disclosed to the reviewers. The names of the reviewers who give their opinion on a specific text are also not disclosed.

4. If the reviewer knows the author’s identity, the reviewer is required to declare that there is no conflict of interest. A similar declaration is also signed by the reviewer if the reviewer and the Author are employed by the same unit.

5. Reviews are made in written form in the Polish language. Additional (other) comments are made in Polish or Belarusian. Each review clearly contains the reviewer’s statement that the text has been approved for printing or that it has been rejected. Reviewers are not permitted to use AI tools to analyze the manuscript or to prepare their review. They should rely on their subject-matter expertise and critical thinking skills.

6. Articles with two positive reviews are approved for publication.

Standards for reviewers

Reviewers review manuscripts under the Editorial Board’s instructions. Their activity may, therefore, affect Editorial Board members’ decisions. Reviewers may also assist in establishing the final form of the paper and improving publications through communications with the authors.

• Deadlines: Reviewers are obliged to submit reviews on a determined date. If, for any reason (due to the topic of the manuscript, lack of time, etc.), they are unable to comply with the time limit or carry out the review, they should notify the Editorial Board immediately.
• Confidentiality: All reviewed manuscripts and their reviews are treated as confidential documents. Sharing manuscripts with a third party is unacceptable (with the exception of those who take part in the publication process).
• Objectivity standards: Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the authors is deemed at least inappropriate. All comments should be expressed with appropriate arguments.
• Source reliability: If such a case occurs, reviewers should mark particular works on the topic of the article which have not been cited by the author. The reviewer should mark all significant similarities between the article and other works, and notify the Editorial Board.
• Avoiding competing interests: Reviewers cannot use the manuscripts they review for their own needs or benefits. They should not assess manuscripts where they have potential conflicts of interest with the author(s).

*

Roles and Responsibilities of the Reviewers:
The Journal follows the CSE guidelines concerning the Reviewers’ roles and responsibilities:

Responsibilities toward the Authors:
– Reviewers keep in confidence the details concerning the review process.
– They provide written, unbiased, and constructive feedback in a timely manner.
– They comment on the originality, accuracy, relevance, and linguistic competence of the article.

Responsibilities toward the Editors:
– Reviewers reply promptly to invitations.
– They disclose any conflict of interest, ethical concerns, bias, plagiarism, or any other
misconduct discovered.
– They provide constructive criticism.
– They indicate the ways to improve the manuscript.

Responsibilities toward the Readers:
– Reviewers make sure that the presented research can be validated by the methods and
analyses described in the manuscript.
– They make sure that the cited works are relevant and up to date.

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

Reviewers are advised to disclose any potential conflict of interest when they agree to review a manuscript or, if not yet known, after the publication. If a concern about a conflict of interest is made, the manuscript will be assigned to a different Editor or Reviewer. In the case of an acknowledged conflict of interest, the review procedures and the editorial decisions will be made independently of the disclosed information, based solely on the quality of the manuscript.

Peer review process
All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are subject to a double-blind peer review (the identities of the Authors and the Reviewers are not disclosed). Two external Reviewers will assess manuscripts initially accepted by the Editors after a technical screening and verification of the thematic scope. Reviewers submit their reviews in writing, together with the declaration of potential conflicts of interest and information whether they discovered the identity of the Authors. Reviewer form is available here Review form.

The review is anonymous and confidential. If the review is not satisfactory, Editors may invite additional reviewers or discuss the case internally. It is always the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision on any material to be published in the Journal. The standard peer review applies to all full-length articles and review articles.
The conference materials will be published only if they meet the criteria of non-prepublication (see below the paragraph Prepublication) and will be subject to the standard peer review procedure. Articles written by Editors, members of the Board or anyone else having a potential conflict of interest with the Journal (that needs to be disclosed) will be subject to the standard peer review procedure conducted by the Board members and Reviewers who do not have such correlation with the Authors.
In the case of articles authored by the Editor-in-Chief, the review process is managed by Advisory Board Chair or one of the Deputy Editors who also makes the final decision. All the decisions are impartial, independent, and based only on the quality of the submitted material, also in the case of special issues or supplements. The Journal publishes a list of Reviewers on the web site, without disclosing details on the reviewed articles. Depending on the nature of the supplementary material, such material may also be subject to the peer review process.
As the Journal operates on double-blind review principle, the Authors are requested to prepare their manuscript with masked authorship details (the names of Authors, their affiliations, funding, acknowledgement, etc.) that otherwise might disclose their identity. Any special issues and supplements are subject to the standard peer review procedure.
Non-scientific material that is excluded from the external peer review procedure includes:
– Introductions,
– Editorials,
– speeches,
– book reviews,
– in memoriam statements,
– society updates (academic events, awards, etc.)