Journals - MOST Wiedzy

Your account

Login
Polish Maritime Research Logo
Polish Maritime Research

Peer-review process

The peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the papers published in our journal. All manuscripts are considered to be confidential and are peer-reviewed by Editors and qualified ad hoc Reviewers.

The peer-review process of PMR consists of the following stages:

  • Author submits a manuscript to the Editor’s Office electronically using the PMR online submission system.
  • When the manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief makes a preliminary assessment of its quality and suitability.
  • The Editor-in-Chief can accept or reject the manuscript. If the Editor-in-Chief accepts the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief assigns an Associate Editor to manage the manuscript and an automatic email is sent to the Associate Editor. Otherwise, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the manuscript straight off even before sending it to an Associate Editor if its content is not important for publication from the scientific point of view and is out of the PMR’s scope.
  • Taking into account the PMR assessment criteria, the Associate Editor should either decide to send the manuscript out for review or recommend it for immediate rejection to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • If the Associate Editor accepts the manuscript for review, the Associate Editor assigns two independent Reviewers who are outside the parent institution represented by Author(s), and at the same time at least one of the Reviewers should be affiliated with a foreign institution, different than the nationality of the Author(s) of this manuscript. Otherwise, the Associate Editor is obligated to invite a new Reviewer.
  • If the Reviewer agrees to review the manuscript, the PMR online submission system provides a form of the Reviewer Opinion and the Associate Editor is presently informed that ‘Reviewer accepted invitation’. The “Manuscript Review Form” is available here,
  • The provided “Manuscript Review Form” can be used to serve as a checklist for important questions to ask about manuscripts during the review process. The Reviewer is asked to evaluate the manuscript from a variety of aspects such as the novelty and originality of research, the importance and impact of results, the logic, style, length and clarity of presentation, and the completeness of references.
  • The Reviewer submits a report electronically to the Associate Editor in the form of the “Manuscript Review Form”, which should include various comments and recommendations in written form and one from among several possibilities:
    • accept,
    • reject, with an invitation to the Author(s) to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached,
    • reject, but indicate to the Author(s) that further work might justify a resubmission (it requires resubmitting a new version of the manuscript to the Editor’s Office using the PMR online submission system),
    • reject outright, typically on grounds of a lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
  • The Associate Editor examines the review results based on two Reviewer reports and either rejects the manuscript, accepts the manuscript or asks for revisions from the Author(s).
  • The Associate Editor’s decision is sent to the Author(s) together with the Reviewer reports.
  • The manuscript (to be revised) must be corrected by Author(s) and uploaded to the Associate Editor electronically using the PMR online submission system. Author(s) should attach a letter that indicates the changes made or actions taken as a result of each of the Reviewer(s) comments and recommendations.
  • The Associate Editor sends the revised manuscript back to the Reviewer(s). The Associate Editor cannot send the resubmitted manuscript back to the Reviewer(s) if it seems that the Author(s) have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
  • The Reviewer(s) sends the new “Manuscript Review Form” with the Reviewer’s  positive or negative decision to the Associate Editor.
  • The final decision on publication of the manuscript that received a positive opinion of the Reviewers and the Associate Editor is undertaken by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors-in-Chief.