Reviewers

REVIEWERS COOPERATING WITH THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Prof. Anna Bednarczyk – University of Lodz (Lodz, Poland)

Prof. Piotr Fast – University of Silesia (Katowice, Poland)

Prof. Krystyna Galon-Kurkowa – University of Wrocław (Wrocław, Poland)

Prof. Galina Gumyonnaya– Linguistic University of Nizhny Novgorod (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia)

Prof. Natalya Kokovina – Kursk State University (Kursk, Russia)

Prof. Andrei Kunarev – Moscow Region State University (Moscow, Russia)

Prof. Eliza Małek – University of Lodz (Lodz, Poland)

Prof. Halina Mazurek – University of Silesia (Katowice, Poland)

Dr Mikhail Pavlovets – Higher School of Economics: National Research University (Moscow, Russia)

Prof. Tatyana Prokhorova – Kazan Federal University (Kazan, Russia)

Prof. Irina Romanova – Smolensk State University (Smolensk, Russia)

Prof. Wanda Supa – University of Bialystok (Białystok, Poland)

Prof. Elena Sozina – Ural Federal University (Yekaterinburg, Russia)

Dr Aleksandr Stepanov – Tver State University (Tver, Russia)

Prof. Galina Shelogurova – Russian Educational Centre “International Cooperation” (Moscow, Russia)

Prof. Marina Urtmintseva – Lobachevsky State
University of Nizhny Novgorod (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia)

Prof. Natalya Vershinina – Pskov State University (Pskov, Russia)

Prof. Natalya Volodina – Cherepovets State University (Cherepovets, Russia)

Prof. Urszula Wójcicka – Kazimierz Wielki University (Bydgoszcz, Poland)

Prof. Tatyana Zhurcheva – Samara State University (Samara, Russia)


Reviewing procedures

The manuscripts submitted by the authors are subject to a preliminary review by the editors with regard to formal aspects and scholarly merit. The editorial board decide in which issue to include the submitted article / review / report. The proposed papers should be in keeping with the journal’s philological-humanistic profile; furthermore, the texts should be original and inventive, they should significantly add to existing research. The editorial board reserve the right to edit the materials sent in. In the event of a negative or ambivalent publishing review, the text is submitted for another evaluation. Articles on which two negative opinions have been passed will not be accepted for publication in the given issue.

The authors of negatively assessed texts will be notified as soon as the reviews reach the editorial board.

Key points of the journal’s policy:

  1. To evaluate each submitted text, the Editorial Board appoint two independent reviewers from institutions other than the institution of the author.
  2. In the case of texts written in a non-native language, at least one reviewer is affiliated in an institution in a country other than that of the author’s nationality.
  3. The identity of the reviewed authors is not disclosed to reviewers, nor vice versa (double-blind peer review).
  4. The reviewers are appointed in such a way as to avoid any conflict of interest (COI; COI is understood as relations between the author and the reviewer: personal relations like kinship, legal relations, conflict, subordination in a workplace; direct scholarly co-operation in the period of two years preceding the reviewing process).
  5. The review must take a written form and must contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected.
  6. The rules of accepting and rejecting manuscripts are made publicly known on the journal’s website.
  7. The names of reviewers of particular contributions are not disclosed; once a year the journal announces a general list of reviewers for the given issue.

Review template:
RU
PL