CBI Pro-Akademia

Rozwiń menu ▼

Contact

Andrzej Klimek
Andrzej Klimek
Scientific Secretary
e-mail:

AI Partners

The image shows our cooperation with the online plagiarism detection service PlagScan

The task “Maintenance
of the anti-plagiarism system” is being
financed by an agreement 605/P-DUN/2018
from the resources of Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education dedicated to
the activity popularising the science.

Zadanie „Utrzymanie systemu antyplagiatowego”
finansowane w ramach umowy
605/P-DUN/2018 ze środków Ministra
Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego przeznaczonych
na działalność upowszechniającą naukę

 

 

Crossref Member Badge

 

 

Review process

  1. As a result of the prequalification of submitted paper as consistent with the thematic profile of Acta Innovations, Editor-in-Chief selects two Reviewers outside of the research unit of the author of the submitted article. The selected reviewers must ensure the independence of opinion, no conflict of interest and confidentiality.
  2. Authors and Reviewers do not know their identity (double-blind review process).
  3. At least 50% of reviewers evaluating scientific publications are the external reviewers, and non-members of the Scientific Council  of Acta Innovations and not employed at RIC Pro-Akademia.
  4. After selecting the reviewers Editor in Chief sends them a request for review, accompanied by an abstract of the article, and indicate the required scope of the review and the deadline for its preparation. Reviewer does not receive information about personality of Author / Authors.
  5. Following acceptance of review request by the Reviewers, Editor in Chief sends them electronically the full text of the article with a link to the review form.
  6. Reviewer may prepare the review under a contract or not. In the case of review drawn up under a specific contract, along with the blinded version of article intended for review and review form, the Editor sends also the personal data form required for payment.
  7. Personal data of reviewers is confidential. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes full list of reviewers on the website of the journal. Names of reviewers of individual publications or editions of the journal are not disclosed.
  8. Reviewer submits review in writing in electronic form to the Editorial Board. Review must end with an explicit information about the approval or rejection of the article for publication.
  9. After receiving reviews, representative of the Editorial Board:
    • Informs the author of receipt of reviews (for reviews that do not require amendments in the article, or require only minor editorial changes).
    • Forwards the review to the author, who makes the required amendments. In the case of comments, with which he or she disagrees, the Author prepares a response to the review.
    • Resends the article after resubmission to the Reviewer that required introduction of corrections in the text - if the reviewer considered it necessary to review the paper again.
  10. The decision to accept the article for publication is made by the Editorial Board on the basis of the observations made in the reviews and final version of the article submitted by the author.
  11. In case of single reviews that recommend the rejection of article, Editor in Chief decides to reject the work or directs article to another (third) Reviewer.
  12. After completion of the review procedure, the Editorial Board approves the payment of any salaries, if the parties agreed on them beforehand.
  13. The above principles and review form are made ​​public on the website of the journal.