1. For each publication the Editorial Office will nominate two independent reviewers from outside the unit.
2. In case of a text written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers has to be affiliated with a foreign institution of a nationality different than the author’s.
3. At each publication the Journal’s Editorial Office will strive to select reviewers that are independent and not affiliated to the author of the work. Otherwise, the reviewer will be obligated to sign a declaration of lack of conflict of interests (direct personal relations, professional subordination, direct scientific cooperation over the last two years preceding the preparation of the review).
4. A review will be in writing and each applicant will be able to read it and comment on it.
5. Once a year the list of reviewers is posted on the Journal’s website.
6. All articles and works submitted by authors and initially qualified for publishing by the Editorial Board will be subject to the reviewing procedure. The initial qualification involves assessing the scientific character of the work, its suitability for the Journal’s profile and its formal aspects as well as complying with the requirements of the Circulation procedure for contributions submitted for publication.
Principles of Reviewing Articles in the Journal
The Editorial Office of Space-Society-Economy adopted the principles of reviewing text published in our journal in compliance with the recommendations contained in the brochure “Good Practices in reviewing procedures in science” published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. In particular, we pay attention to the:
1. Rule of double-blind review – the names of reviewers are disclosed only on the journal’s website without connecting them to the reviewed texts,
2. Substantial selection and competences of reviewers; the reviewers hold at least PhD degree,
3. Selection which ensures that the reviewer and the reviewed are not in close personal or professional relation,
4. Written nature of a review and its preparation according to a standard form, the review has to end with a clear conclusion – admitting the article for publishing or its rejection,
5. Presenting the review to the author and giving him or her a chance to comment thereon,
6. Publishing only these texts which received two positive reviews.