The publication process in “Civitas” consists of four stages.

1. Preliminary Assessment

Manuscripts submitted for publication in “Civitas. Studia z Filozofii Polityki” undergo a preliminary assessment by the Editorial Board or the guest editor of a thematic issue.

The outcome of this assessment may be:

(a) rejection of the manuscript for failure to meet standards concerning the structure of the article, academic quality, language, publication ethics, or for other justified reasons;
(b) referral of the manuscript for peer review.

Average time to an editorial decision: 60 days

---

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

All submissions that successfully pass the preliminary assessment undergo a double-blind peer-review procedure. The process is confidential, and the identities of both the authors and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers. Independence means that the reviewers have no shared institutional affiliation, close academic collaboration, professional dependency, or personal relationship with the authors.

Peer review is external. Only in exceptional and duly justified circumstances may a member of the Editorial Board serve as one of the reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief and the guest editor of the relevant thematic issue may not review manuscripts submitted to that issue. Individuals who have previously published an article in the biannual journal “Civitas. Studia z Filozofii Polityki” may be invited to serve as reviewers.

In the event of conflicting reviews:
If one review is positive and the other negative, the Editorial Board or the guest editor may – following careful discussion and assessment of the manuscript in light of the reviews – decide to accept or reject the manuscript or appoint a third reviewer.

If a further round of review is required:
If substantial revisions and subsequent re-review are recommended, two reviewers are appointed for the next stage of the review process. Whenever possible, these are the same reviewers who assessed the manuscript in the first round. Their task is to determine whether the revisions introduced by the authors adequately address the recommendations made in the reviews.

If it is not possible to obtain further assessments from the original reviewers, the manuscript is referred to newly selected reviewers whose competence to assess the manuscript in the relevant subject area is demonstrated by their publication record.

Average time to receive reviews from the date of submission: 150 days

---

3. Editorial Decision

On the basis of the reviews received, the Editorial Board or the guest editor of the thematic issue decides whether to:

(a) reject the manuscript and provide the authors with the reasons for the decision (consisting of the part of the review intended for the authors and, where applicable, an additional opinion from a member of the Editorial Board);
(b) send the authors comments and a list of required revisions – including both the reviewers’ recommendations and any additional recommendations from the Editorial Board – to be addressed before the manuscript can proceed further in the publication process;
(c) refer the manuscript to an additional reviewer for assessment;
(d) accept the manuscript for publication and inform the corresponding author of the decision.

---

4. Revisions and Publication

If the authors receive comments and a list of required revisions, they are expected either to revise the article accordingly or to respond to all comments, criticisms, and suggestions received.

Deadline for submitting revisions: 30 days.

Within this period, the authors should submit the final version of the manuscript to the Editorial Board. Failure to meet the deadline may result in the manuscript being postponed to a subsequent issue or withdrawn from publication.

Average time from submission to publication: 300 days