Good reviewing practices
The University Press makes every effort to ensure that the books it publishes meet both academic and editorial criteria. One of the most important components of taking care of a high academic level of works published by the University Press is the book review procedure, the rules of which are presented below.
The selection and appointment of reviewers
1. The reviewing process is conducted on an ongoing basis in accordance with the rules adopted by the Publishing Board: at least 2 publishing reviews are necessary.
2. The book reviewers are independent academics (university professors or full professors) with recognised achievements in the field of the book that is to be published; they are appointed by the Publishing Board of a Faculty or a department of Adam Mickiewicz University and approved by the Board Chairman.
3. The book reviewers are employed at academic institutions in Poland or abroad other than that the author of the book, except for the situation where the group of specialists in the field of the reviewed work is very small.
4. The author of the book has no influence on the selection and appointment of reviewers.
5. The reviewers and the author of the book must not be in close professional or personal relations with each other; any conflict of interest is prohibited. A conflict of interest is includes the following, among other situations:
a) direct personal relationships (kinship, legal ties, conflict),
b) hierarchical professional relations,
c) direct academic collaboration within the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
6. The reviewers and the author cannot be co-authors of a previously published work, nor co-editors of the same collective work.
7. In the case of habilitation degree monographs or professorial monographs, the reviewer cannot be the supervisor of the author's doctoral dissertation.
Guidelines for reviewers
1. On the basis of the information presented about the author and the text, reviewers make a decision to review the monograph, taking into account their substantive competence as specialists in the field and the deadline for the review.
2. The appointed reviewers should notify the University Press of any conflict of interest and in such a case should withdraw from the review preparation.
3. A reviewer's decision that the work does not meet the criteria of academic rigour and is unsuitable for publication should in under no circumstances result in their withdrawing from the review. In such a case, the reviewer should prepare a rigorous and well-founded review with a negative conclusion.
4. The review must be produced in a written form and should not merely constitute a description of the work being reviewed, but be an in-depth and well-founded assessment of it, together with an unambiguous conclusion.
5. In the event of major/fundamental changes needing to be made to book subject to review, reviewers will be provided with a revised version for the review in order to reach a final decision as to whether they recommend the manuscript for publication and agree to have their name included in the book as a reviewer.
6. Reviewers are bound by the principle of confidentiality; they may not consult the content of their review or disseminate its content in any way.
Guidelines for the Author
1. Once the reviewers have been appointed by the University Press, the author has no right to request that they be changed.
2. The author has no right to request a change of reviewers after receiving the text of the review.
3. The author must respond to the review in writing.
4. The author should correct the text in accordance with the reviewers' comments or explain in writing why he/she does not intend to take account of a given comment. The reviewers receive the content of the author's response for review.
Other general rules
1. Reviews that do not meet the content-related and formal requirements of an academic review shall not be accepted.
2. The University Press archives both the review and the author's response.
3. Reviews are prepared in accordance with appropriate formal agreements with reviewers.