rof. ALK dr hab. Przemysław Drapała (Kozminski University in Warsaw)

Dr hab. Monika Jagielska (University of Silesia)

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Barbara Jaworska-Dębska (University of Łódź)

Prof. UMK dr hab. Jerzy Lachowski (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)

Prof. UwB dr hab. Mirosława Melezini (University of Białystok)

Prof. UŚ dr hab. Barbara Mikołajczyk (University of Silesia)

Prof. dr hab. Marian Mikołajczyk (University of Silesia)

Prof. UAM dr hab. Jarosław Mikołajewicz (Adam Mickiewicz University)

Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Naworski (Nicolaus Copernicus University)

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Ewa Olejniczak-Szałowska (University of Łódź

Prof. UMCS dr hab. Jerzy Stelmasiak (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University)

Dr Tatyana G. Yezhova (Bałtycki Federalny Uniwersytet im. Immanuela Kanta w Kalinigradzie, Russia)



Reviewers in: 2013, 2014, 2015 r.

Prof. UO dr hab. Kamil Antonów

Prof. ALK dr hab. Przemysław Drapała

Dr hab. Wojciech Gonet

Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Góral

Prof. UŚ dr hab. Monika Jagielska

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Barbara Jaworska-Dębska

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Agnieszka Krawczyk

Prof. UJ dr hab. Hanna Knysiak-Molczyk

Prof. UMK dr hab. Jerzy Lachowski

Prof. UwB dr hab. Mirosława Melezini

Prof. UŚ dr hab. Barbara Mikołajczyk

Prof. UAM dr hab. Jarosław Mikołajewicz

Prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Naworski

Dr Henryk Nowicki

Prof. UŁ dr hab. Ewa Olejniczak-Szałowska

Prof. UJ dr hab. Beata Polanowska-Sygulska

Prof. UG dr hab. Andrzej Powałowski

Prof. UJ dr hab. Nina Półtorak

Dr hab. Piotr Przybysz

Dr Anna Pudło

Prof. WSPiA dr hab. Robert Sawuła

Prof. dr hab. Andrzej Skoczylas

Dr Piotr Stanisławiszyn

Prof. UO dr hab. Piotr Stec



1. All submissions undergo preliminary formal and substantive assessment by the Editorial Board. If an article is in line with the profile of the Prawo 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 Prawo 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