Reviewing procedure

Peer review process

Double-Blind Review

In accordance with the principles adopted by the Editorial Board of Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, all manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to a review carried out by two independent reviewers, i.e. a Double-Blind review. After receiving the manuscript, the Journal undertakes to proceed immediately with the technical evaluation and the subsequent review process. The time needed for this process depends on the availability of suitable experts, but usually does not take more than 40 days from the date of the correct submission of the manuscript meeting the editorial standards.

Peer review process

The submitted manuscript is verified by a member of the Editorial Board. After a positive initial verification, two independent experts are selected to whom the manuscript is sent for review. The selection of reviewers allows for suggestions made by authors during the manuscript submission process, regarding both preferred and non-preferred (opposed) reviewers. In the Double-Blind review process, reviewers and authors do not know each other. This enables an impartial and accurate review of the manuscript.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their specialization and interests, their reputation and previous experience of the Editorial Board. Selected reviewers will receive an invitation, followed by a complete manuscript and a review form if the offer is accepted.

Conflict of interest

In each case, reviewers are requested to report a conflict of interest if they suspect that it may occur based on the content of the manuscript received. If the conflict of interest is confirmed by the Editorial Board, the reviewers are asked to reject the review offer.

Peer review time

The Editorial Board makes every effort to provide the authors with the shortest possible duration of the review. According to the guidelines, a reviewer has 30 days to complete the review after receiving the complete manuscript. We ask our reviewers to help us reduce the decision-making time as much as possible by providing timely feedback. We ask reviewers to inform us if they are unable to complete their assignment on time or whether they are unavailable for a longer period of time.

Review Form

Using the review form saves time and ensures a more structured and accurate review. It consists of two parts – “Remarks and comments addressed to the authors” and “Confidential information for the Editorial Board”. All information contained in the “Remarks and comments addressed to the authors” are made available to the authors. Reviewers can use the “Confidential information for the Editorial Board” section to send comments intended only for members of the Editorial Staff involved in reviewing a manuscript, which will not be made available to the authors.

Content of the review

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript in terms of the concepts of the conducted research or experiments, their usefulness for current scientific knowledge, scientific content, language and grammar. Reviewers make recommendations concerning the publication of the manuscript along with a substantiation.

If the manuscript requires some improvements before it can be accepted, reviewers are asked to make suggestions for such improvements. If the comments are negative, reviewers are asked to explain the shortcomings in the scientific content or language. We do not tolerate offensive or unethical comments or remarks. The Editorial Board allows for the possibility of editing the comments of reviewers in terms of factual or linguistic errors or to remove confidential information.

Confidentiality of the review

The reviewing process is confidential communication between reviewers, editors, the editorial staff and the corresponding author. Reviewers are obliged not to discuss the manuscripts received with people who are not directly involved in the evaluation process.

Decision based on the results of the review

Based on the comments submitted by reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to accept or reject a given paper. The Editor-in-Chief can make a decision whether:

  1. to accept the manuscript without any corrections – the text is forwarded to further stages of the production process;
  2. to ask authors to resend the manuscript after a minor or major revision, depending on the extent of the corrections. The Editorial Board makes its own decision or, in the case of doubts, sends the revised text for review to reviewers, provided they have agreed to it;
  3. to reject the manuscript – mainly in the case of negative reviews, the text is removed from the system without the possibility of correcting it in its current form.

Each of these decisions may be appealed against by the authors, preferably by e-mail addressed to the Editorial Board within seven (7) days from the date of its receipt.

Discussions and revisions after the publication of the paper

Each paper posted on our website can be commented (comments are moderated by the Editorial Staff in respect of ethics of expression). Comments and remarks on the published texts can be also sent by e-mail to the Editorial Board.