Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. Academic Journal of Modern Philology implements ethical standards observed by the academic community worldwide, in particular by:
Fot. Aleksandra R. Knapik
a) blind peer reviews
· all submitted papers undergo a double-blind review, which means that neither the reviewer nor the author know their respective identities,
· the names of the reviewers are not disclosed,
· author gets acquainted with the content of the review only.
The fundamental strength of the peer review process remains the foundation of our editorial philosophy and the procedure itself seeks to answer several questions:
1. How does the article contribute to a field or discipline?
2. Which elements are particularly valuable to readers?
3. How does the author’s methodology fit into the study?
4. What is the quality of presented bibliographical entries?
5. Does the article qualify for publishing without any further corrections?
6. Does the article qualify for publishing with minor corrections? If so, what corrections are necessary?
7. Does the article qualify for publishing with major corrections? If so, what corrections are necessary?
8. Does the article not qualify for publishing? Please justify your opinion;
b) the procedure:
For the detailed procedure see:
c) rules for Reviewers:
- the complete list of reviewers for a given issue is published in the print; the full list of guest Reviewers of Academic Journal of Modern Philology to date is published at:
- editors match reviewers with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible,
- a reviewer who feels they lack the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript or can be unbiased in their assessment or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process,
- reviewers should inform the journal promptly if their circumstances change and they cannot fulfil the original agreement or if an extension is necessary,
- reviewers should also point out relevant published work which is not yet cited;
d) prevention of scientific misconducts:
- conflicts of interest (personal, commercial, political, academic or financial) must be declared to Editors by the authors and reviewers; editors must also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to the Editor-in-Chief; if a reviewer is aware of any potential conflict of interest, they should inform the editor who has invited them to conduct a review,
- clear identification of the authorship – authors should ensure that only individuals who made a substantial contribution to the work can be rewarded with authorship,
- encouraging practices that prevent guest, gift and ghost authorship – authors are asked to submit a written declaration specifying the authorship of their submitted manuscripts; any detected cases of such misconduct shall be disclosed and documented,
- requirement of originality – only original manuscripts which meet the aims and scope of our journal (https://ajmp.uwr.edu.pl/about-us/) shall undergo the reviewing process,
- clear statement that fabrication of results and making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour – such manuscripts and published articles shall be rejected and retracted,
- we also expect our authors and editors to uphold the ethical standards observed by the academic community worldwide and raise any concerns by emailing: email@example.com