Reports on Mathematical Logic

logo of Jagiellonian University in Krakow

Procedures for external peer review

Description of the review procedure

The editor appoints at least two independent reviewers to evaluate each publication, at least one reviewer affiliated to an institution other than the institution of the author of the paper under review.
The review must be in writing and must contain an explicit conclusion stating whether the article should or should not be accepted for publication.
The names of reviewers of particular publications or issues of journals are not revealed; the names of co-operating reviewers will be published by the journal on a yearly basis.

All texts are reviewed. 

The Editorial Team does not use reviews from other journals, commercial reviewing platforms, Internet forums etc.

The selection of the Reviewer is performed by the Editorial Team. Suggested external Reviewers as well as selected Reviewers for conducting the review are chosen by editors, other Reviewers and other Editorial Teams specialising in similar fields.

Only texts which have undergone the review process and received two positive reviews can be accepted for publication by the Editorial Team. Texts which received one negative review in relation to which the Reviewer sees a possibility for accepting the text for publication after the text is corrected may be sent to the Author along with recommendations. 

The content of the Review is not publicised.
Review reports are made available to the Authors (after the anonymisation process) and the journal’s Editorial Team.
Any interaction between Authors and Reviewers is unacceptable. Their contact is anonymised. Conclusions and review reports as well as Author’s replies are sent via the Editorial Team or using the right system allowing for data anonymisation in the double-blind review mode.

Confidentiality Rule
All reviewed works are confidential, which means that disclosing them to third parties is unacceptable (except for authorised persons).
Rules for Preserving Objectivity Standards
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of Authors’ works is considered inappropriate. All observations of a Reviewer should be justified adequately.
Scholarly Integrity Rule
The Reviewers are committed to meeting the highest standards and ethics rules regarding the publication of scientific text and preventing practices that counteract the established standards. In order to do that they may enter adequate corrections, and also, in the case of suspicion of dishonest practices (plagiarism, falsifying research results etc.) or unethical actions, take a decision not to publish the text.
Rule of Sources Integrity
The Reviewers, if need be, should cite reference works not included by the Author. Any significant similarities to other works should also be indicated and the Editorial Team should be notified about them.
Fair Play Rule
Issues such as race, gender, faith, origin, nationality or political beliefs of the Authors must not, in any way, affect the result of the review Texts sent for publication are evaluated first and foremost in terms of their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. Decisions of the Reviewers must be based upon scientific values.
Rule for Counteracting Conflicts of Interest among Reviewers
The Reviewer must not use the reviewed works for her or his personal needs and merits. They cannot evaluate texts in whose case there may be a conflict of interest with its Author/Authors.
In the case of the Reviewer a conflict of interest may arise in circumstances where there are any doubts regarding her or his impartiality or her or his actions may be in any way influenced during the reviewing process, e.g., business, financial, legal affiliations; Reviewer’s opinions, scientific competition, and family relations.
Rule of Timeliness
The Reviewers are obliged to provide the review by a set deadline. If for some reason (factual knowledge, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or review the article, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team of this fact.
In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines and COPE Flowcharts .