Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers invited to evaluate manuscripts submitted to “Systemy Logistyczne Wojsk” / “Military Logistics Systems” (SLW) play a key role in ensuring the scholarly quality, integrity, originality and scope compliance of the journal’s publications.
SLW applies a double-blind peer review model, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, impartiality and timeliness, and to prepare their assessments in a factual, constructive and ethically responsible manner.

1. Access to the Editorial System
Reviewers use the electronic editorial system to accept or decline review invitations, access assigned manuscripts and submit review reports.
Reviewers may use the link provided in the invitation email or log in to the Editorial System as an author/reviewer.
In case of technical access problems, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office: redakcjaslw@wat.edu.pl.

2. Accepting a Review Invitation
Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they:
• have the appropriate scholarly or expert competence to assess the manuscript;
• have no conflict of interest;
• are able to complete the review within the deadline specified by the Editorial Office;
• can maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process;
• can provide an independent, reliable and constructive assessment.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review, they should decline the invitation in the system or inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible. Where appropriate, reviewers may suggest another expert, but the final decision on reviewer appointment rests with the Editorial Office.

3. Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose to the Editorial Office any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of their assessment.
A conflict of interest may be professional, institutional, financial, personal, competitive, hierarchical or of another nature. In particular, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office if they suspect that they:
• have or have recently had close scholarly cooperation with the author;
• are affiliated with the same organisational unit as the author;
• have a supervisory, personal or competitive relationship with the author;
• could benefit or suffer disadvantage from publication of the manuscript;
• recognise the author despite the double-blind review model and believe this could affect their impartiality.
In case of doubt, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office before accepting or continuing the review.

4. Confidentiality
The manuscript under review, data contained in the manuscript, editorial correspondence and the review report are confidential.
Reviewers must not:
• share the manuscript with third parties;
• discuss the manuscript outside the peer review process;
• use unpublished data, concepts, methods, findings or conclusions for their own purposes;
• contact the author directly regarding the reviewed manuscript;
• disclose their identity to the author, unless the Editorial Office decides otherwise in exceptional cases.
If a reviewer wishes to consult part of the manuscript with another person, they must obtain prior permission from the Editorial Office. The consulted person must also maintain confidentiality and must have no conflict of interest.

5. Use of AI and Automated Tools
Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, author data, review reports or editorial correspondence to publicly available generative AI tools or other tools that may store, use or process such data outside the control of the Editorial Office.
Reviewers should not use generative AI to prepare the scholarly assessment of a manuscript, formulate review recommendations or replace their own expert judgement.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their review reports. Any auxiliary use of automated tools, if it does not breach confidentiality and does not replace expert judgement, should be disclosed to the Editorial Office.

6. Review Criteria
The review should address, in particular:
• the manuscript’s fit with the aims and scope of SLW;
• the clear logistics contribution of the work;
• originality and significance of the research problem;
• clarity of the aim, research questions or hypotheses;
• quality of methodology and data presentation;
• reliability of analysis and interpretation of findings;
• relevance, quality and currency of the literature;
• validity of conclusions and their connection with the results;
• clarity of article structure;
• quality of language, tables, figures and visual materials;
• compliance with publication ethics, including originality, authorship, data, conflicts of interest and AI use.
For interdisciplinary submissions, reviewers should assess whether the article provides a clear contribution to logistics, logistics systems, supply chains, readiness, resilience, transport, supply, maintenance, infrastructure, data or logistics management.

7. Form of the Review
The review should be factual, specific and constructive. It should identify both the strengths of the manuscript and the elements requiring improvement.
Comments to authors should be professional, courteous and free from personal remarks. Criticism should address the content of the work, methods, data, argumentation or presentation of findings, not the person of the author.
Reviewers should avoid general statements without justification. If revisions are recommended, reviewers should indicate which elements require changes and why.
Confidential comments intended only for the Editorial Office should be entered in the appropriate field of the review form and should not contradict the comments provided to the author.

8. Language of the Review
Comments intended for authors should normally be prepared in English, unless the Editorial Office indicates otherwise. Confidential comments to the Editorial Office may be prepared in English or Polish, as agreed with the Editorial Office.

9. Reviewer Recommendation
After completing the assessment, the reviewer indicates a recommendation in the review form. Possible recommendations include, in particular:
• acceptance;
• acceptance after minor revisions;
• major revisions and further assessment;
• rejection.
The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final decision on the manuscript is made by the Editorial Office.

10. Reporting Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should promptly inform the Editorial Office of any suspicion of:
• plagiarism or self-plagiarism;
• redundant or duplicate publication;
• simultaneous submission to another journal;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• manipulation of results, images, tables or citations;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• authorship irregularities;
• inappropriate or undisclosed use of AI tools;
• copyright infringement or misuse of third-party materials;
• any other breach of publication ethics.
Reviewers should not contact the author directly or conduct an investigation outside the Editorial Office.

11. Suggestions Concerning Literature
Reviewers may suggest additional references only when such suggestions are substantively justified and improve the quality of the manuscript.
It is unacceptable to suggest citations for the purpose of increasing citations to the reviewer’s own publications, publications of collaborators, a research group, an institution or a journal, unless this is directly justified by the needs of the reviewed manuscript.

12. Re-Review
If authors revise the manuscript, the Editorial Office may ask the reviewer to reassess it. In such cases, the reviewer should focus primarily on whether the authors have responded to the comments and whether the revisions are sufficient.

13. Recognition of Reviewers
The Editorial Office may publish a list of reviewers cooperating with the journal and annual reviewer acknowledgements. Such publication does not disclose which reviewer assessed a particular manuscript.
Reviewers who have questions concerning the public listing of their name and affiliation should contact the Editorial Office.

14. Contact
Questions concerning review invitations, Editorial System access, deadlines or review rules should be addressed to the Editorial Office: redakcjaslw@wat.edu.pl

Last updated: 15.05.2026.