All articles published in the Political Science Quarterly “e-Politikon” are reviewed. The Editorial Board is obliged to observe the rules of scientific diligence and honesty. We assure the Authors that they will receive competent reviews of the sent articles, written by independent Reviewers.
1. The Authors are responsible for the content of their articles.
2. The main responsibility lies on the Author sending the article.
3. The Authors send a text already formatted in a way compatible with the detailed editorial recommendations.
4. The Authors correct their texts according to the Reviewers’ instructions and introduce the author’s adjustments.
5. The Editorial Board does not send back texts that were not commissioned and secures its right to edit and shorten them, if necessary.
6. We would like to emphasize that ghostwriting and guest authorship are considered as academic dishonesty and will be exposed, which will include informing proper subjects (institutions employing the Authors in question, scientific associations, scientific editors’ associations etc.).
Stages of publishing:
1. Submitting the article to the Editorial Board (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
The following documents have to be attached to the article:
a. a statement concerning the input of each Author [download]
b. a statement concerning the sources of financing the publication [download]
The statements mentioned above must be handed in personally or sent to:
Ośrodek Analiz Politologicznych UW
Nowy Świat 67, room 3
2. Editorial Board’s initial verification of the article.
Texts sent to be published in the Quarterly must be accepted by the Editorial Board.
a. The Chief Editor is responsible for the initial qualification of the text; next, he asks the Thematic Editor specializing in the topic of the text for his opinion on it.
b. The Chief Editor and the Thematic Editor decide on following matters: choosing two independent Reviewers for the article; asking the Author to complete or correct the text, where necessary; rejecting the text entirely.
3. Notifying the Author/Authors about the Council’s decision, in case of the Editorial Board’s decision to review the article – making it anonymous and forwarding it to the Reviewers (these actions are taken by the Secretary of the Editorial Board).
4. Reviewing process – done according to the rules of the double-blind review process – Authors and Reviewers do not know their identities.
Review’s possible outcomes:
a. a negative review
b. a review suggesting corrections and the need of having the article reviewed again
c. a review suggesting corrections without the need of having the article reviewed again
d. a positive review, deeming the article ready for being published in its original form
e. condition for the publication of the article – two positive reviews
5. Sending the Author/Authors the license contract concerning the future use of the copyright to the article (these actions are taken by the Secretary of the Editorial Board).
6. Making possible corrections by the Author/Authors (possibly submitting it to further reviews) and corrections by the Editorial Board.
7. Text typesetting.
8. Publishing the issue on the Quarterly’s Internet page and sending it to the newsletter’s subscribers.