Information for Reviewers

Review procedure

1. By submitting an article for publication, authors agree to the review procedure. 

2. Submitted texts – as part of an initial review – are evaluated by the Topic Editor from a formal and thematic perspective. If there are no substantial comments, the article is passed on to two competent reviewers, who are specialists in the field that the submitted article relates to, and who have the title of at least doktor habilitowany (in the case of reviewers in Poland) and who are members of the Editorial Committee of the journal. 

3. Submitted articles will not be sent to reviewers who are from the same institution as authors, or to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. In the latter case, the author is obliged to inform the Editors of this situation. 

4. In the case of texts written in a language other than Polish, at least one reviewer will be affiliated with a non-Polish institution that is in a country other than that of the author of the text. 

5. Texts are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double-blind review). Besides comments related to subject matter, in the review form reviewers will indicate their opinion, which should be taken into consideration by the Editors:
- Accept Submission
- Revisions Required
- Resubmit for Reviewer
- Resubmit Elsewhere
- Decline Submission

6. Reviewers must not use their knowledge of the subject of the article prior to its publication.

7. A text is given an editorial number, which identifies it during further stages of the editorial procedure.  

8. Any article presenting the results of empirical research is read by the Editor responsible for statistics. 

9. The author is informed of the result of a review; subsequently, there will be an opportunity for correspondence with the journal Editors relating to any possible comments or to any recommendation concerning publication.

10. In connection with the introduction of the system “ghostwriting & guest authorship," the Editors will document all manifestations of scientific/scholarly impropriety, specifically, for example: a) the publication of an article with the same title in different journals, with 50% of the content unchanged;  b) articles written by a person who is not the author of that article;  c) the addition of a co-author who made no contribution to the writing of an article, or the omission of a co-author who contributed to writing the article, etc. Authors are also requested to add to the article information concerning the sources of financing of the publication and concerning the contribution of scientific/scholarly-research institutions, of associations, and of other entities.

11. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

The review form: LINK (download)

 

_____________________________

Procedure for creating, cooperation and maintaining contacts with foreign reviewers

  1. An electronic database of foreign reviewers is created in the editorial system of the journal.
  2. Members of the Scientific Council and Journal Editors are entitled to submit and contact the Reviewers.
  3. The basic criterion for the selection of Reviewers is knowledge of the research area of ​​transport economics and logistics.
  4. The person of the proposed reviewer is asked to agree to accept the reviewer's function and to include his/her data in the reviewers' database. If consent is obtained, the data is entered into the database of reviewers referred to in point 1.
  5. The selection of reviewers for the evaluation of articles is made by the Thematic/Topis Editor, who presents his proposal for approval to the Representative of the Economic Faculty at the Gdańsk University Press. In the case of obtaining approval, the Editor forwards information about the Reviewers to the Gdańsk University Press, who sends articles and requests for review to approved Reviewers.
  6. In order to maintain good relations with the Reviewers, they are informed about issued volumes and other important editorial events.
  7. In the process of article evaluation, the Reviewer is guided by the criterion of the added value of the article to the theoretical and practical knowledge, substantive and methodological correctness of the course of reasoning and the correctness of the writing workshop. The results of the article review are saved by the Reviewer in the review form.
  8. In the review process, both the Author and the Reviewer remain anonymous to each other (the "double-blind review" principle).
  9. Reviewers are obliged not to disclose the content of reviewed articles and the results of reviews to third parties.
  10. In the event of a conflict of interest in relation to reviewed articles, the Reviewer is obliged to notify the Editor of this fact, who will appoint another Reviewer.