Guidelines for reviews and acceptance of material for publication

1. Two reviewers, either members of the scientific board or from outside, have been appointedby editor in chief to assess each publication.
2. The reviewer has to sign a declaration concerning the avoidance of a conflict of interest; conflict of interest is deemed to occur between the reviewer and the author when:
a) there exist direct personal relationships (kinship, legal, conflict);
b) conflict of professionalhierarchy;
c) direct scientific cooperation in the past two years, prior to preparing the review.
4. The review shall be in writing and end with an explicit request for approval of the article for publication or its rejection.
5. Rules of eligibility or rejection of the publications and the review form are available to the public on the journal's website.
6. The names of the reviewers of each publication are not disclosed.
7. The author is required to complete a declaration not to publish the text submitted to the journal in another publication.
8. The review is prepared on the basis of a form consisting of three parts. / The review form is available on the website /. The first is used to assess the treatment from the point of view of different criteria by selecting the appropriate option. In the second part, the reviewer clearly indicates whether the article is suitable for publication and under what condition(s). While the third part is devoted to detailed comments as well as mandatory and optional changes that the author must apply to the text before its publication.
9. In case when the opinions of the reviewers are divergent concerning the feasibility of publishing an article, the editorial board hands the text over to a third reviewer.
10. Both the reviewer and the author of the article are committed to careful, diligent and timely execution of their tasks - the reviewer in preparing the review, and the author of the article in commenting on the reviews presented to him.
The procedure for reviewing the articles appearing in the journal follows the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, described in the brochure "Good practices in procedures of reviewing in Science", Warsaw, 2011.
Submitting an article to be published in the "Andes" is equivalent to the author's consent to submit to the reviewing procedure adopted by the journal.
In the case of work by young researchers (BA, MA, PhDC), an opinion by a promoter together with a recommendation is required.
Each work submitted to the editors is given an editorial number, which identifies it during later stages of the review process. All reviews are anonymous - the author does not know the names of the reviewers, and the reviewers that of the author (so-called "double blind review").
Articles submitted by the authors are subjected to, in order:
1. A preliminary formal evaluation by the editors on its compatibility with the magazine's profile and the basic requirements for scientific standing and level of expertise.
2. Assessment of the article by the editor-in-chief, who then directs the individual articles to specific editors, who are experts in the given field.
3.Evaluationby the assignment editors.
4. Following a favourable evaluation, the editor-in-chief sends the completed issue of the magazine for review. The edition goes to two independent reviewers, who review each article separately, in special reviewing forms. The list of reviewers is published once a year on the editorial page of the magazine.
5. The author is informed of the result of the review. If there are comments made by the reviewers, the article is returned to the author in order to make the suggested corrections.
6. The final decision to print is made by the editor-in-chief and the scientific board.