Yellow Point Publications, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org), adopted the following monograph publishing process.
YPP publishing reviews all texts before their publication. The editorial office of the publishing house, in cooperation with the Author and the Scientific Council, appoints reviewers (usually two, but the number may be different). The editorial board asks the authors to suggest the reviewers, but the final decision is made jointly with the scientific council. The purpose of this activity is to make sure that the review is carried out by a specialist in their field.
When selecting the reviewers, the following issues are taken into account:
The reviewer must have experience in research work in a given field.
Only Polish and foreign researchers with a PhD degree or higher may become reviewers, provided that they meet the above-mentioned conditions.
Reviews of scientific monographs are open reviews, which means that both the reviewers and the author know each other’s names.
When selecting reviewers, the scientific council and the editorial board are guided only by the substantive preparation of reviews for the preparation of reviews; issues such as gender, national origin, nationality, religion or sexual orientation or political opinions are not taken into account.
Reviewers are asked to refer to several issues related to the manuscript, including:
In the event of any irregularities, the publishing house will follow the procedures recommended by COPE. They concern the procedure to be followed in cases of: suspicion of redundant (duplicated) publication; suspicions of plagiarism; suspected data tampering; changes in the list of authors; suspected ghost, guest or courtesy authorship; when the Reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (IC) in the submitted manuscript; when a reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (KI) in a published article; when the Editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript; as well as suspicions that the Reviewer appropriated the author’s ideas or data.