1. All sent texts are initially verified by the Editorial Board. If the article is compatible with the Quarterly’s general profile and fits the requirements specified in the Recommendations for the Authors, it will be qualified for further procedure. If the article does not meet these requirements, it will be sent back to the Author/Authors (to the first person listed or to the person indicated as the one to whom the mail should be addressed).
2. The Chief Editor, assisted by the thematic Editors, chooses at least two Reviewers from these who are interested in the subject of the article. In case of a text written in a language other than Polish, at least one of the Reviewers has to be affiliated with a foreign institution of a nationality different than the Author’s.
3. The Reviewers are given summaries of the articles. After they agree to review the article, the Editorial Board sends them the full text with an obligatory review form (below).
4. The Reviewers have two weeks to write a review, starting from the day they receive the article.
5. Reviewing is done according to the rules of the double-blind review process, which means that the Authors and the Reviewers do not know their identities. The whole process takes place under the rule of confidentiality.
6. The Reviewers pass the filled review forms to the Editorial Board (via e-mail, mail or directly in the editorial office).
7. In the review’s conclusion, the Reviewer has to state if the article should be published or rejected.
8. The Authors are informed about the reviews’ outcome and receive reviews for inspection. The Authors should comment on the Reviewers’ remarks about the article and send the revised edition of the text back to the Editorial Board within a week from receiving the review at the latest.
9. The Reviewer states, whether the article needs to be reviewed again. If it does, the Editorial Board sends the revised edition of the article to the same Reviewer that reviewed it the first time.
10. The article is qualified for further publishing procedure under the condition of receiving two positive reviews.
11. In matters of argument, the Editorial Board appoints additional Reviewers for the disputable article.
12. At least once a year the Editorial Board publicly announces (posts on the website) an up-to-date list of Reviewers collaborating with the Centre for Political Analysis.
The procedure of reviewing articles is done in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education that can be found in the “Good Practices in reviewing procedures in science” study (Warsaw 2011).