Review Procedure

  1. Initial acceptance of a text, as confirmed by the Editorial Board, will be notified to the author(s) by the Editorial Secretary.
  2. Once accepted by the Board, the text will be evaluated by two anonymous reviewers. The names of the reviewers are unknown to the author(s) and the names of the author(s) remain unknown to the reviewers (the double-blind review process).
  3. Each reviewer will sign a statement [Reviewer Statement] to the effect that no conflict of interests (understood as direct personal relations, professional relations or direct academic cooperation in the period of two years prior to the submission of the text) exists between the reviewer and the author(s) of the text.
  4. Texts not fulfilling the criteria of a scientific publication will not be considered for inclusion in the journal. A scientific publication is understood as one presenting the results of original research of an empirical, theoretical or analytical nature and which provides: the title of the publication, the forename and surname of the author(s), the methodology used, the research procedure followed, as well as the results and conclusions accompanied by cited sources (list of references/bibliography).
  5. For each text, two external reviewers are selected who:
  • are affiliated with a different institution to that of the author(s)
  • are NOT members of the Editorial Board of the EEJTR
  • guarantee the quality of the review by possessing at least a doctoral degree in the field and a recognized scientific record.
  1. At least one of the reviewers will be affiliated with a foreign institution (based in a country other than Poland).
  2. The review process ends with an explicit conclusion proposing:
  • to accept the text for publication as written
  • to accept the text for publication subject to the inclusion of revisions suggested by the Reviewer
  • to reject the text.
  1. Reviewers are required to follow the confidentiality principle in handling submitted texts and are not permitted to use or to pass-on any information gathered from the review process prior to the text’s publication.
  2. The reviewers comments are sent to the author(s) of the text. If the review suggests revisions, the author(s) must respond to them within two weeks.
  3. If the author(s) disagree with the reviewers’ suggestions such response may be submitted by way of an argued statement addressed to the Editorial Board within the same two-week time frame.
  4. A Text which receives two positive reviews will be published.
  5. The decision on publication of the text is taken by the Editorial Board, after considering the reviews, author(s)’ response and version of the text inclusive of suggested revisions.


Review Form

Each reviewer is required to complete and submit a Review Form [Review Form]


List of Reviewers Cooperating with the Journal

(The names of reviewers for particular volumes of the EEJTR are not disclosed. Once a year the Journal will publish a list of reviewers on its website).

  • Otilia Clipa, University “Ştefan cel Mare” of Suceava (Romania)
  • Tomasz Dubowski, Uniwersity of Bialystok (Poland)
  • Jurg Gerber, Sam Houston State University (USA)
  • Lynette Jacobs, University of the Free State (South Africa)
  • Elżbieta Karska, University Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński (Poland)
  • Filip Křepelka, Masaryk University (Czech Republik)
  • Paweł Laidler, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
  • Rett Ludwikowski, The Catholic University of America (USA)
  • Francesco Magni, University of Bergamo (Italy)
  • Sławomir Redo, Academic Council on the United Nations System (Austria)
  • Jerzy Sarnecki, Stockholm University (Sweden)
  • Charles Szymański, Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
Print Friendly, PDF & Email