List of reviewers for 2016

SPPAiE Nr 20

Radosław Antonów

Mariusz Dybał

Ewa Galewska

Rafał Juchnowski

Tomasz Jurczyk

Jakub Kociubiński

Dagmara Kornobis-Romanowska

Barbara Kowalczyk

Rafał Lipniewicz

Justyna Michalska

Arleta Nerka

Piotr Ochman

Monika Paradowska

Karol Rusin

Grzegorz Sikorski

Mirosław Struś

Magdalena Tabernacka



List of reviewers for 2017

SPPAiE Nr 21 i 22

Daniel Bloemers

Diana Cibulskiene

Paweł Czarnecki

Piotr Dobosz

Tomasz Dolata

Andrzej Dziadzio

Beata Giesen

Marcin Glicz

Joanna Helios

Wioletta Jedlecka

Tomasz Jurczyk

Agata Kozłowska

Rafał Lipniewicz

Katarzyna Marak

Piotr Michalik

Adrian Niewęgłowski

Monika Paradowska

Damian Radwański

Krzysztof Rostański

Piotr Sitarek

Piotr Soroka

Emilia Struś

Jerzy Szczotka

Andrzej Szumański

Małgorzata Wachowska

Andrzej W. Wiśniewski

Mariusz Zelek


List of reviewers for 2018

Nr 23-26

Jerzy Akińcza

Katarzyna Ciuśkowska

Tomasz Dolata

Hanna Frąckowiak

Rafał Juchnowski

Tomasz Jurczyk

Urszula Kalina-Prasznic

Jakub Kociubiński

Agnieszka Kotlarz-Mangold

Adam Kwieciński

Paweł Lenio

Rafał Lipniewicz

Małgorzata Niklewicz

Olga M. Płaskowska

Magdalena Rzewuska

Dorota Sokołowska

Marek Salomonewicz

Bronisław Sitek

Magdalena Skolimowska-Kulig

Piotr Soroka

Mirosław Struś

Małgorzata Wachowska



1. All submissions undergo preliminary formal and substantive assessment by the Editorial Board. If an article is in line with the profile of the Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne journal and fulfils the requirements listed in the “Information for Authors”, it passes to the next stage of the procedure.

2. The editorial assistant sends the submissions to two reviewers for assessment.

3. The Editorial Board selects the reviewers from among specialists in a given field, taking into account the subject editor’s suggestion. A reviewer may come from the Editorial Board’s list of regular reviewers or from outside the list. The selected reviewers must guarantee independence as well as a lack of conflict of interests with the authors (no direct personal relationship, professional subordination and direct scholarly collaboration over the last two years preceding the writing of the review).

4. In the case of foreign language submissions one of the reviewers is, if possible, a person affiliated to an institution in a country other than the country in which the author of the submission lives or works.

5. The reviews are doubly anonymous: the reviewers and the authors do not know their identities (double-blind review). Information about the reviewer can be declassified only in the case of a negative review or an article containing controversial elements, following the author’s request, if the reviewer in question agrees to reveal this information.

6. The reviewers should take into account the substantive value of the articles under review, in particular their originality and scholarly value as well as whether they tackle new research problems. What is also evaluated is the formal side of each submission.

7. Reviews are made in written form. Each review should contain an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article in question should or should not be accepted for publication. The review may contain a conclusion whereby the article may be accepted for publication after the author has fulfilled specific conditions (after introducing corrections or additions). The author responds to the review in writing.

8. A submission is accepted for publication after both reviewers have testified to its high substantive quality, in particular, its originality.

9. If the conclusions of the two reviews diverge, the Editorial Committee decides whether the article should be accepted for publication. In such a case the opinion of a super-reviewer may also be referred to.

10. The Editorial Board reserves the right to propose, on the basis of its own or the reviewers’ opinions, corrections to be introduced by the author on which will depend the final decision concerning publication.

11. A list of regular reviewers is published by the Editorial Board once a year in Studenckie Prace Prawnicze, Administratywistyczne i Ekonomiczne and online. The list is published in alphabetical order.

12. The article review procedure complies with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in the document “Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science”, Warsaw 2011.




Your cart (products: 0)

No products in cart

Your cart Checkout