The procedure of peer reviewing articles submitted to the journal “Logopedia Silesiana” is based on the principle of double-blind review process, is consistent with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (see Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce [Good practices in review procedures in science], ed. W. Marciszewski et al., Warsaw 2011; download PDF) and the code of ethics of the journal (more).

The article review process is conducted entirely through the Open Journal System (see reviewer guide).

For the purpose of the evaluation of each submission at least two independent reviewers, from outside the editorial board, the publishing center and the author's center. The reviewers are recognized authorities in the field of the reviewed article.

The review process is mutually anonymous: authors and reviewers do not know each other's identities.

The identity of reviewers of specific articles are not disclosed. A list of reviewers coworking with the journal is published once a year on the journal’s website (more).

Before sending the article to the reviewer, the editor removes all author information from the file, such as name, affiliation, and any other information that identifies the author. This applies to the textual and graphical content of the file, as well as the metadata (more).

In the later stages of the review process, the article is identified by the number assigned to it.

The review shall be prepared in writing, using a form. The review ends with an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the text should be accepted for publication and whether it requires corrections and additions.

In justified cases, the editor may commission an additional review of the article (for example, if one of the reviews raises doubts or is negative).

Having received the review, the journal editor sends it to the author.

Depending on the indications of the reviews, further steps are taken:
A. If both reviews include a recommendation for publication with no indication that changes are needed: the text is accepted for publication and the author is required to submit a non-anonymized version of the text within one week of receiving the review.
B. If both reviews contain a recommendation for publication and at least one of them indicates the need for changes: the author is obliged to send the text in a non-anonymized version and taking into account the reviewer's comments within three weeks from the date of receipt of the review. The author shall indicate which of the reviewer’s recommendations the author has complied with and which the author has rejected. The author shall justify the rejection of the indications in each case.
C. In the case of conflicting reviews (one with a recommendation for publication and the other with a negative conclusion), as well as in other justified cases, the decision to qualify the text for publication rests with the Editorial Team. The text may then be referred to a third reviewer. If the third reviewer approves the article for publication, the steps are taken as in A or B, respectively.

The final decision on the acceptance for publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief. 

By submitting an article for publication in “Logopedia Silesiana”, the author agrees to undergo the review procedure adopted by the journal.