Reviewers

Reviewers in 2017

Andriej Babanow – Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Bogusław Bakuła - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Magdalena Błaszak – University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Tadeusz Bogdanowicz – University of Gdańsk, Poland

Magdalena Bogusławska – University of Warsaw, Poland

Anna Bolek – Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Poland

Artur Bracki – University of Gdańsk, Poland

Jolanta Brzykcy – Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Anna Car – Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Mária Čižmarová – Prešovská univerzita, Preszów, Słowacja

Maria Cymborska-Leboda - Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland

Maciej Czerwiński - Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Katarzyna Dembska – Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Piotr Fast – University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Marcin Filipowicz – University of Warsaw, Poland; Univesity of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

Jerzy Kaliszan - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Irena Kamińska-Szmaj – University of Wrocław, Poland

Halina Korbicz - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Krzysztof Kusal – University of Humanities and Economics in Lodz, Poland

Władimir Miakiszew – Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Mirosława Michalska-Suchanek – University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Olga A. Meshcheryakova – Elec State University named after I. A. Bunin, Elec, Russia

Maria Mocarz-Kleindienst – The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland

Raisa Mowczan – T. H. Shevchenko Institute of Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine

Ihor Nabytowycz – Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland

Diana Oboleńska - University of Gdańsk, Poland

Gabriela Olchová – Matej Bel University, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia

Bartosz Osiewicz - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Ivo Pospišil – Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Janko Ramač – University of Novi Sad, Serbia

Mariya Romaniuk – Uzhhorod National University, Ukraine

Oleg Rumyantstsev – University of Macerata, Italy

Monika Rzeczycka – University of Gdańsk, Poland

Andrzej Sitarski - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

Danuta Sosnowska - University of Warsaw, Poland

Julia Sułkowska-Mazurkiewicz – University of Lodz, Poland

Elżbieta Szczepańska – Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Ludmiła Szewczenko – Jan Kochanowski University, Kielce, Poland

Ałła Tatarenko – Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine

Liudmyla Vasylyeva – Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine

Harry Walter – Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald, Germany

Jadwiga Waniakowa - Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Halina Waszkielewicz - Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Anatolij Zahnitko - Donetsk National University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

 

 

 

 

Reiewers in 2015-2016: download.

Reviewers up to 2014: download.

 

 

Review procedure

 

1. All submissions undergo preliminary formal and substantive assessment by the Editorial Committee. If an article is in line with the profile of the “Slavica Wratislaviensia” journal and fulfils the requirements listed in the “Information for Authors”, it passes to the next stage of the procedure.

2. The Scientific Editor of the Issue sends the submissions to two Reviewers for assessment.

3. The Editorial Committee selects the Reviewers from among specialists in a given field, taking into account the subject editor’s suggestion. A Reviewer may come from the Editorial Committee’s list of regular reviewers or from outside the list. The selected reviewers must guarantee independence as well as a lack of conflict of interests with the Authors (no direct personal relationship, professional subordination and direct scholarly collaboration over the last two years preceding the writing of the review).

4. In the case of foreign language submissions one of the Reviewers is, if possible, a person affiliated to an institution in a country other than the country in which the Author of the submission lives or works.

5. The reviews are doubly anonymous: the Reviewers and the Authors do not know their identities (double-blind review procedure). Information about the Reviewer can be declassified only in the case of a negative review or an article containing controversial elements, following the Author’s request, if the Reviewer in question agrees to reveal this information.

6. The Reviewers should take into account the substantive value of the articles under review, in particular their originality and scholarly value as well as whether they tackle new research problems. What is also evaluated is the formal side of each submission.

7. Reviews are made in written form. Each review should contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article in question should or should not be accepted for publication. The review may contain a conclusion whereby the article may be accepted for publication after the Author has fulfilled specific conditions (after introducing corrections or additions). The Author responds to the review in writing.

8. A submission is accepted for publication after both reviewers have testified to its high substantive quality, in particular, its originality.

9. If the conclusions of the two reviews diverge, the Editorial Committee decides whether the article should be accepted for publication. In such a case the opinion of a Super-reviewer may also be referred to.

10. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to propose, on the basis of its own or the Reviewers’ opinions, corrections to be introduced by the Author on which will depend the final decision concerning publication.

11. A list of Reviewers is published online (swr.wuwr.pl). The list is published in alphabetical order.

12. The article review procedure complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in the document “Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science”, Warsaw 2011.

 

 

„Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis Slavica Wratislaviensia”

Institute of Slavic Studies, ul. Pocztowa 9, 53-313 Wrocław

e-mail: slavica@uni.wroc.pl

 

Review

of a scientific text with an editorial number ……………………………… entitled ………

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

with a volume of ………, submitted for publication in the journal "Slavica Wratislaviensia", ed. . …………………………………………………………………… .

Please, mark the selected grade.

 

  1. Originality, novelty of the subject

- the article is fully original and innovative

- the article is largely original and innovative

- the article is original and innovative to a satisfactory degree

- the article duplicates current state of research

  1. Adequacy of the applied methodology to the subject taken

- methodology fully adequate

- methodology adequate to a satisfactory degree

- methodology adequate to a very limited degree

- methodology inadequate

  1. Argumentation and inference

- completely convincing

- partly convincing

- convincing to a very limited degree

- inconclusive

  1. Selection of the subject and object literature

- excellent

- satisfactory

- requires completion

- unsatisfactory

  1. Stylistic values of the text, language

- clear and understandable

- requires several corrections

- requires corrections

- unsatisfactory

  1. Footnotes and bibliography

- prepared in accordance with the system in force in the journal

- contain defects

- prepared contrary to the system in force in the journal

  1. Summary

- clear and detailed, containing a description of a purpose, methodology, conclusions

- sufficiently clear, containing the most important information about the text

- superficial, without basic information about the text

  1. Implementation of the scientific goal and the scientific rank of the article:

- very high

- high

- average

- low

- without scientific rank

  1. Suggested changes and corrections as well as additional comments for the author should be included on a separate sheet, and those related directly to the text should be applied to the text.

Conclusion*

1. I recommend for printing without reservations

2. I recommend for printing after corrections

3. I suggest publication in another journal

4. I DO NOT RECOMMEND FOR PRINTING

 

* Underline the correct alternative

 

A place for additional comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature (attn. the editorial office) ………………………………………………

 

 

zamknij

Twoj koszyk (produkty: 0)

Brak produktów w koszyku

Twój koszyk Do kasy