Reviewers

 

Reviewers in numbers 166/2018 and 167/2018

  1. Anna Bednarczyk - University of Łodz, Poland

  2. Natalia Bliszcz - Belarussian State University, Minsk, Belarus

  3. Olga Bogdanowa - Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

  4. Tadeusz Bogdanowicz - University of Gdańsk, Poland

  5. Magdalena Bogusławska – University of Warsaw, Poland

  6. Jolanta Brzykcy – Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

  7. Anna Car - Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

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

  9. Josef Dohnal - Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

  10. Piotr Fast - University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

  11. Marcin Filipowicz – Univesity of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

  12. Jerzy Kaliszan - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

  13. Julia Kaskina - A. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation

  14. Tadeusz Klimowicz - University of Wrocław, Poland

  15. Ewa Komisaruk - University of Wrocław, Poland

  16. Józef Kufel - Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

  17. Krzysztof Kusal - University of Humanities and Economics in Lodz, Poland

  18. Maria Łoskutnikowa - Moscow City University, Russian Federation

  19. Izabella Malej - University of Wrocław, Poland

  20. Galina Michajłowa - Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

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

  22. Iwona Ndiaje - University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Polska

  23. Galina Nefagina - Pomeranian University, Slupsk, Poland

  24. Diana Oboleńska - University of Gdańsk, Poland

  25. Olga Oktiabrskaja - Lomonosow Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

  26. Wawrzyniec Popiel-Machnicki - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

  27. Michał Sarnowski - University of Wrocław, Poland

  28. Milica Jakóbiec-Semkowowa - University of Wrocław, Poland

  29. Monika Sidor - The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland

  30. Andrzej Sitarski - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland

  31. Jelena Skarłygina - Lomonosow Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

  32. Danuta Sosnowska - University of Warsaw, Poland

  33. Wasilina Stiepanowa - Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University, Russian Federation

  34. Wasilij Szczukin - Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

  35. Jekatierina Szewczugowa - Siberian Federal University, Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation

  36. Alla Tatarenko - Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine

  37. Swietlana Titarenko - Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

  38. Jadwiga Waniakowa - Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

  39. Elina Wasiljewa - Daugavpils University, Daugavpils, Latvia

  40. Inna Wasiljewa - Lomonosow Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation

  41. Halina Waszkielewicz - Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

  42. Joanna Wojnicka - Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland

  43. Alicja Wołodźko-Butkiewicz - University of Warsaw, Poland

  44. Włodzimierz Wysoczański - University of Wrocław, Poland

  45. Wiktoria Zacharowa - National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod, Russian Federation

  46. Iirna Zajarnaja - Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine

  47. Richard Změlík - Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reiewers in 2017: download.

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