Principles of Article Reviews

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.

Review form

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).