Review process

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC MONOGRAPHS OR EDITED SCIENTIFIC MONOGRAPHS

Termedia sp. z o.o. aims to publish scientific monographs, scientific edited monographs and other publications of the top professional level. As recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), each publication of Termedia sp. z o.o. must be peer-reviewed before it is published.

Termedia sp. z o.o. has adopted a double-blind review process recommended by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Below we present requirements that any monograph must meet to be published:

1. The peer-review process comprises two stages.

2. Stage one: Having read the table of contents of the monograph as well as the opinion of relevant editors on the monograph, the Editorial Board and Scientific Board of Termedia sp. z o.o. decide whether to reject the monograph or send it to reviewers.

3. If the monograph is rejected, Termedia sp. z o.o. returns material and media on which the material was supplied to the author(s) and also deletes all copies prepared during the review process from its resources.

4. If the Editorial Board and Scientific Board of Termedia sp. z o.o. initially issues a favourable opinion, the material is sent to the scientific review.

5. The peer-review is made by two experts in a relevant scientific field holding at least a degree of habilitated doctor.

6. Termedia sp. z o.o. does not disclose names of peer-reviewers to the authors.

7. A review report in writing is kept in the files of the Editorial Board and Scientific Board of Termedia sp. z o.o.

8. The review report must contain a clear conclusion whether to print or reject the monograph.
If it is accepted for print, this should be due to its scientific value, in particular if the monograph describes latest research, scientific theories, research methods or represents a significant contribution to the development of science, scientific disciplines or making scientific achievements more popular and known to the general public.

9. Two unfavourable decisions disqualify the monograph from further production. Then, clause 3 applies.

10. Two favourable decisions qualify the scientific monograph for further production.

11. If a favourable decision and an unfavourable decision are obtained, the Editorial Board and Scientific Board contact the author(s) or scientific editor and provide them with the unfavourable review report and ask for their reply in writing and also request a third reviewer to review the monograph. On the basis of the author’s reply to comments contained in the unfavourable review and the third review, the Editorial Board and Scientific Board of Termedia sp. z o.o. decide how to proceed with the monograph.

12. Termedia sp. z o.o., as per recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, makes efforts to ensure that works do not represent misconducts in science such as ghost-writing, guest authorship or plagiarism. To this end, Termedia sp. z o.o. may request authors to make appropriate representations and check manuscripts using relevant anti-plagiarism detection software.

13. If misconduct is detected as set out in clause 12, Termedia sp. z o.o. declares that it will promptly inform relevant scientific and publishing institutions about that and also notify relevant law enforcement authorities.


Termedia Publishing House
ul. Kleeberga 2
61-615 Poznań
tel./faks: +48 61 822 77 81
termedia@termedia.pl