1. The Editor-in-Chief together with the Editorial Board perform the preliminary selection of the submitted papers, bearing in mind the formal requirements of Studia Rossica Posnaniensia journal, the quality of the papers, the thematic scope and the aims of a given issue.
2. Subject Editors in cooperation with the Editor-in-Chief propose the list of experts for reviewers. Two reviewers, who are specialists in the subject of the given volume of the journal, are appointed to review each paper. The appointed experts must not be affiliated with Adam Mickiewicz University. The Editorial Board makes efforts to ensure that one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution from a country that is different from the author’s home country. The Secretary sends a written invitation to experts selected as candidates for reviewers, inquiring whether they are willing to take on the review of papers within the time-period of 2 weeks. We wait 7 days for their response. If the selected experts refuse to review the papers within the proposed time-period, the procedure of selecting reviewers is repeated.
3. The reviews are performed in accordance with the double-blind peer review model, which means that the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers and vice versa. The reviewers are required to inform the Editorial Board of the existence of a potential conflict of interest.
4. The Editor-in-Chief appoints Assistant Editors of subsequent volumes, who cooperate closely with the authors in the process of preparation of the final versions of the papers, after having completed the review stage – this particularly boils down to implementation of the reviewers’ comments. The Assistant Editors can be either members of the Editorial Board or persons appointed as guest editors who do not belong to the Editorial Board. The decisive criterion is their expertise in relation to the subject of the given volume.
5. The Secretary, before sending papers to the reviewers, is responsible for removing all information and data that allow the identification of the authors, i.e. their name and surname, affiliation, e-mail address, sources of financing research etc. The Secretary also coordinates the process of signing the necessary contracts and statements that ensure compliance with the publication ethics.
6. The reviewer’s form that contains criteria of manuscript evaluation is publicly available, it can be downloaded from the journal website in three language versions: Polish, Russian and English.
7. The names of the reviewers of individual papers are not disclosed; a list of reviewers who evaluated manuscripts submitted for publication in a given year is published on the journal website.
8. Each review is submitted in a written form and concludes with an unambiguous opinion regarding accepting the paper for publication or its rejection. In the case of one positive and one negative review, the Editorial Board decides whether the paper should be sent to the third, deciding reviewer, or whether the paper should be rejected.
9. The Secretary informs the authors of the results of the evaluation of their papers and of the schedule concerning further actions aimed at publishing the volume. The author is given a time-period ranging from 2 to 4 weeks to correct the paper in accordance with the reviewer’s comments – it depends on the expected amount of work necessary for correcting the given paper. If some of the comments suggested by the reviewer are not accepted by the author, he or she is obliged to submit a written justification of his or her opinion. The Editorial Board, in particular the Assistant Editor of the volume, decides whether the author’s statement is acceptable or not.
10. The paper, having been approved by the Assistant Editor, is sent to the Language Editor, and then to the Editor-in-Chief, who performs the final verification of the paper and decides to forward the manuscripts accepted for publication to the Publisher.
11. The Publisher is responsible for the technical aspects of the editorial preparation of the journal volumes.