Rules and regulations concerning publishing papers in European Polygraph
1. All papers sent to European Polygraph by their respective authors undergo preliminary assessment by the Editor-in-Chief.
2. The initial assessment results in the decision whether to send the work for an independent review or return it to the author with the information that it will be not published.
3. Two independent reviewers for “internal reviews” are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or by the Deputy Editor following consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.
4. The following cannot be independent reviewers: Editor-in–Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, employees of Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, and people with papers published in the issue containing the reviewed paper.
5. The internal review should answer the question whether the reviewed paper is fit for printing and whether it requires any amendments, and if it does, state what
they are, and must be in written form, and conclude in an unequivocal verdict concerning publication or rejection of an article.
6. If one of the reviewers provides comments and amendments, but does not disqualify the paper, the Editor pass the comments on to the author, asking for the author’s opinion and any amendments.
7. Should the opinions of the author and reviewer diverge, the decision to print the paper or otherwise is made by the Editor.
8. In the case mentioned in 7 above, before making their decision, Editor-in-Chief can appoint another independent reviewer.
9. In exceptional cases, when there are signifi cant circumstances justifying such a decision, and the Editors do not agree with the opinion of the reviewer, Editors may decide to publish a paper against the opinion of the reviewer.
10. Th e names of reviewers is not disclosed to the author, and the names of authors are not disclosed to reviewers.
11. Book reviews and reports are not reviewed, the decision to publish them is the responsibility of the Editors.
Articles submitted to European Polygraph in 2018 were subjected to peer review by:
Nathan J. Gordon, Donald Krapohl, Tuvia Shurany, Raymond Nelson, Marcin Gołaszewski
Articles submitted to European Polygraph in 2017 were subjected to peer review by:
Ryszard Jaworski, Jerzy Konieczny, Marek Leśniak, James Allan Matte, Tuvya Shurany
Articles submitted to European Polygraph in 2016 were subjected to peer review by:
Marcin Gołaszewski, Nate Gordon, Ryszard Jaworski, Jerzy Konieczny, Agnieszka Leszczyńska, Marek Leśniak, James Allan Matte, Tuvya Shurany
Articles submitted to European Polygraph in 2015 were subjected to peer review by:
Tuvya Amsel, Marcin Gołaszewski, Natan Gordon, Ryszard Jaworski, Jerzy Konieczny, Marek Leśniak, James Allan Matte, Tadeusz Widła
Articles submitted to European Polygraph in 2014 were subjected to peer review by:
Gordon Barland (USA), Donald Krapohl (USA), Raymond Nelson (USA), Ryszard Jaworski (Poland), Jerzy Konieczny (Poland), Marek Leśniak (Poland), Tadeusz Widła (Poland), Magdalena Zubańska (Poland)
With the academic reliability and quality of the published articles in mind, our Publishing House is implementing a procedure protecting against ghostwriting.
Both ghostwriting and guest authorship are syndromes of academic fraud.
In ghostwriting the author or a co-author of a publication makes a significant contribution yet his or her participation in such a capacity is neither disclosed nor is the person listed as the/an author in the acknowledgements.
In the case of guest authorship, the participation of an author is negligible or none at all, and such a person is credited as the/an author of the publication.
Our Publishing House hereby informs that all the revealed cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship will be made public, and that such information will be shared with appropriate bodies; moreover, all the cases of academic fraud will be documented.