Reviewing

PEER REVIEW POLICY

All research articles submitted to Catallaxy are subject to an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the editors assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope, meets basic scholarly and formal requirements, is written in sufficiently clear English to allow substantive evaluation, and complies with the journal’s ethical and submission requirements. A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the required scholarly or formal standards, or cannot be evaluated reliably in the form submitted.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Catallaxy uses a double-blind peer-review model: reviewers do not receive information identifying the authors, and authors do not receive information identifying the reviewers. The editors take reasonable steps to preserve anonymity throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise and independence from the manuscript and its authors. A reviewer who has a conflict of interest, lacks the necessary expertise, or cannot complete the review within a reasonable period should decline the invitation. Reviews are confidential and may not be shared or used for personal advantage.

Reviewers are asked to provide both a substantive assessment and a clear recommendation concerning the further editorial procedure. The review should identify the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses, assess the relevance and originality of the contribution, the adequacy of the theoretical framework and research method, the quality of the analysis and interpretation, and the clarity of the conclusions. Reviewers should formulate comments in a constructive and sufficiently specific manner to enable the author and editors to understand the basis of the recommendation.

Possible recommendations include acceptance, acceptance after minor revision, major revision with further evaluation, and rejection. The final publication decision is made by the editors and is not determined mechanically by reviewer recommendations. Where reviews differ substantially, the editor may request an additional review or seek further clarification before making a decision.

Authors invited to revise a manuscript should address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments carefully and indicate how the manuscript has been changed. When a suggested change is not adopted, the author should provide a reasoned explanation. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further evaluation is required.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed in connection with individual manuscripts. Catallaxy publishes a list of reviewers who cooperated with the journal during the relevant year, without indicating which manuscript was reviewed by a particular person.

REVIEW CRITERIA

  • fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • clarity and significance of the research problem;
  • originality and contribution to the relevant literature;
  • adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • appropriateness and transparency of the research method;
  • quality of evidence, analysis and interpretation;
  • consistency between the research question, results and conclusions;
  • quality and relevance of the references;
  • clarity, coherence and scholarly presentation of the manuscript;
  • compliance with ethical and publication standards.

INDICATIVE PROCESSING TIMES

The journal publishes the following indicative average processing times:

  • initial editorial assessment: approximately 30 days;
  • peer-review stage: approximately 60 days;
  • publication: approximately 80 days.

These figures are indicative averages rather than guaranteed deadlines. Processing time may vary depending on the subject of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the extent of revisions required, and the time needed for editorial and production work.

REVIEW FORM

Catallaxy uses a structured review form combining a parametric assessment with qualitative comments and an overall recommendation. The Review Form is publicly available for download.

REVIEWERS WHO COOPERATED WITH CATALLAXY IN 2025

  • Bartosz Totleben — Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland
  • Agnieszka Szulc-Obłoza — Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
  • Dawid Megger — Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
  • Dawid Piątek — Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland
  • Łukasz Topolewski — Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
  • Sławomir Czech — University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
  • Justyna Bokajło — University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Magdalena Kuczmarska — Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland
  • Elżbieta Rogalska — University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Agnieszka Matuszewska-Pierzynka — University of Lodz, Poland
  • Anna Jurczuk — University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Damian Bębnowski — University of Lodz, Poland
  • Barbara Danowska-Prokop — University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
  • Adam P. Balcerzak — University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland