Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The principal role of the Administrative Law Review is propagating the results of the most recent scientific studies of high substantive standards and significance for the development of science  in order to introduce these results into the international circulation. The periodical constitutes a thought exchange forum on the contemporary administrative law. In the Administreative Law Review we publish scientific articles, glosses, polemics, reviews and information about the lawyers’ scientific movement in Poland and abroad. The periodical is addressed mainly to the representatives of administrative law doctrine, persons performing legal professions, legislators, administration employees and entrepreneurs.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

  1. The editor in chief  or a thematic editor indicated by him, makes an initial, substantive selection of the submitted articles, after his approval the articles undergo reviewing procedure.
  2. Each article is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.
  3. The reviewers are appointed by the editor in chied, if necessary, asking the thematic reviewers for opinion.
  4. The reviewers are appointed from persons who have scientific achievements in a given field and enjoying the reputation of a reliable reviewer.
  5. The following persons cannot be reviewers: a person affiliated at the same unit as the author, a member of the scientific council of the periodical; a person employed by the editorial section of the periodical, or by the subject where its editor in chief is  affiliated.
  6. In case of articles written by persons affiliated at foreign institutions, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated at a foreign institution.
  7. The authors and reviewers do not know their identities (the double-blind review process model).
  8. The editors submit the description of article to the potential reviewer (title, number of characters etc.), as well as the abstract of it, leaving them totally free to decide whether to accept or reject the text to be reviewed.
  9. List of scientific publications  is made available once a year on the periodical’s website and in its  printed issue.
  10. Assessment criteria for the scientific publications, as well as the review form, are made available on the website of the periodical.
  11. The review is in writing and ends with an explicit conclusion about admission of the article to be published or its rejection.
  12. A positive conclusion of the review does not exclude the possibility of the reviewer specifying the range of indispensable corrections
  13. If the review does not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, the editor in chief fixes an additional deadline for review completion, or appoints another reviewer.
  14. The decision about publishing the text is made by the editor in chief, on the basis of remarks and conclusions contained in reviews, having consulted the appropriate thematic editor.
  15. Obtaining two positive reviews is the condition of admitting the article to be edited and published.
  16. In case of divergences in the reviewers’ opinions the editor in chief appoints an additional reviewer.
  17. In case the reviewers suggest corrections, the condition of publishing is that the author of the text will take them into consideration.
  18. The author of the article is entitled to refer to remarks and postulates made in the review.
  19. The editors reserve the right not to admit a given article to be published even when it obtains two positive reviews.
  20. In cases of suspicion  or detection of scientific unreliability cases  (e.g. a duplicated publication, plagiarism, fabricating data, incorrect marking of authorship, undisclosed conflict of interests, lack of consent from the ethical commission, misappropriation of the author’s idea or data) the editors act according to the recommendations of  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Publication Frequency

From 2024, Administrative Law Review is published twice a year (semi-annually). Texts for the first issue for a given year must be submitted by the end of January. Texts for the second issue for a given year must be submitted by the end of July.

No 1 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of June

No 2 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of December

 

Open Access Policy

Administrative Law Review is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition of open access. The articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).

ccby

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

§1

  1. The rules of publication ethics applicable in Administrative Law Review are in line with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  2. The editorial board of Administrative Law Review has implemented the guidelines of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) contained specifically in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and in the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  3. The editorial board of Administrative Law Review cooperates both with authors and peer reviewers towards promoting, developing knowledge and raising the awareness of the publication ethics rules defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  4. All manuscripts submitted for publication in Administrative Law Review are subject to verification in terms of their compliance with the rules of publication ethics.
  5. The editorial board of Administrative Law Review recommends that authors and peer reviewers read not only the ethical rules presented below but also the materials posted on the website of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org).

§ 2

All parties involved in the publishing process (the author, editors, peer reviewers and the publisher) are committed to adhering to the ethical rules at each stage of the publishing process in Administrative Law Review.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

Ethical rules compliance supervision

§ 3

The editorial board of Administrative Law Review exercises supervision over the compliance with ethical rules related to publishing scientific texts in the journal and counteracts practices that are inconsistent with the ethical standards adopted.

Accountability

§ 4

  1. The Editorial Board of Administrative Law Review is responsible for deciding which articles, commentaries on judicial decisions (glosses), reviews and reports from scientific conferences submitted to the journal should be published and is accountable for everything published in the journal.
  2. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.
  3. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  4. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Decisions regarding publications

§ 5

  1. A decision on whether to publish or not to publish a submitted manuscript shall be made by the editorial board of Administrative Law Review.
  2. When making the decision, the editorial board takes into account both the content of peer reviews along with peer reviewers' recommendations and the significance, originality and transparency of the manuscript and conformity with the profile of Administrative Law Review.

Anti-plagiarism system

§ 6

  1. To prevent plagiarism or redundant, multiple (duplicate) publication, Administrative Law Review uses the plagiarism checker software Quetext.
  2. Prior to sending the manuscript to peer reviewers, the editorial board of Administrative Law Review checks all the texts submitted for publication using the Quetext plagiarism checker.
  3. The definition of plagiarism and redundant, multiple (duplicate) publication adopted by the editorial board of Administrative Law Review has been determined herein in the section: AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES / Originality and Plagiarism / Redundant, multiple (duplicate), or concurrent publication (§ 23-24).
  4. In case of suspected plagiarism or a suspected redundant, multiple (duplicate) publication, the editorial board shall initiate a relevant procedure as described in detail at the Administrative Law Review website under the tab Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules, which is based on the guidelines presented in the form of  flowcharts by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).

Peer review

§ 7

  1. The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.
  2. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.
  3. The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Fairness

§8

  1. The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  2. The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality

§ 9

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

§ 10

  1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
  2. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
  3. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

§ 11

  1. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
  2. When ethical complaints have been filed concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, the editor should take reasonably responsive measures and initiate the procedure described at the website of Administrative Law Review under the tab Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules. If there a conflict of interests within the editorial board, the ethical complaint should be filed with the Publisher (biuro@fia.lublin.pl).
  3. The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines) when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Administrative Law Review.
  4. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.

Journal metrics

§ 12

The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.

Complaints and appeals

§ 13

  1. A complaint against Administrative Law Review may concern the activity of the journal itself, members of the editorial board, members of staff of the journal or the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Publishing House (MCSU Publishing House – Wydawnictwo UMCS).
  2. The complaint may specifically address negligence or undue performance of tasks, as well as infringement of appellant's interests by Administrative Law Review.
  3. A complaint against the journal, members of the editorial board or staff of Administrative Law Review must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief (emil.kruk@mail.umcs.pl).
  4. A complaint against the Editor-in-Chief must be submitted to the Publisher (biuro@fia.lublin.pl).
  5. A complaint against the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Publishing House must be submitted to the Rector of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (rektor@umcs.pl).
  6. The competent supervisory body shall notify the person/entity whose activity is covered by the complaint of the content of the complaint and shall obligate the person/entity to respond to the allegations.
  7. The entity competent for settling the complaint should settle the complaint not later than within a month from its submission, notifying the appellant of the manner of its settlement.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

§ 14

  1. Detailed rules on reviewing has been described on the website of Administrative Law Review under the tab Peer Review Process.
  2. When preparing a review electronically in reviewer's individual account on the website of Administrative Law Review, the reviewer obtains, along with guidelines for reviewers, also full information on the ethical rules applicable in relation to the reviewing process. 

Contribution to editorial decisions

§ 15

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

§ 16

Any expert invited to review who considers himself or herself incompetent to evaluate the results of research submitted for publication in Administrative Law Review or who finds that it is not possible to complete the review in a timely manner should immediately notify the editor so that other reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

§ 17

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

§ 18

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

§ 19

  1. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  2. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

§ 20

  1. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  2. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
  3. In the event of suspected occurrence of non-disclosed conflict of interest, the editorial board shall initiate the procedure described in detail on the website of Administrative Law Review under the tab Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules, which is based on the guidelines presented in the form of  flowcharts by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES 

Reporting standards

§ 21

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

§ 22

  1. Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. 
  2. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

§ 23

  1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  2. The editors of Administrative Law Review consider plagiarism to be as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).

Redundant, multiple (duplicate), or concurrent publication

§ 24

  1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  2. The editors of Administrative Law Review consider a redundant, multiple (duplicate) publication to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.

Acknowledgement of sources

§ 25

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

§ 26

  1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
  2. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  3. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  4. To prevent cases of 'ghostwriting' and 'guest (gift) authorship', when submitting a manuscript for publication in Administrative Law Review, a scan of the declaration on the percentage contribution to the publication  signed by all co-authors must be attached as an additional file.
  5. In the event of suspected occurrence of 'ghostwriting' or 'guest (gift) authorship', the editorial board shall initiate the relevant procedure described in detail on the website of Administrative Law Review under the tab Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules, which is based on the guidelines presented in the form of flowcharts by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
  6. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
  7. Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

§ 27

  1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
  2. The authors should inform the editorial board of Administrative Law Review about the sources of funding for the publication, contribution of scientific research institutions, associations or other entities ('financial disclosure').

Fundamental errors in published works

§ 28

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

PUBLISHER’S CONFIRMATION

§ 29

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

§ 30

The Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Publishing House applies the rules of publication ethics according to the guidelines of  the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supports Administrative Law Review in this matter, in particular by consultancy and professional legal assistance, access to and technical assistance for Open Journal Systems (OJS), which should allow the editorial board to manage the publishing process in accordance with the highest quality and ethical standards.

 

Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules

If any manifestation of scientific unreliability is detected, the Editorial Board shall apply the following rules of procedure, based on guidelines in the form of diagrams (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and made available under licence CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.

§ 1

[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication]

A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.

Proceeding in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the submitted and published manuscript

§ 2

[Rules of procedure in the cases of suspected plagiarism]

Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).

Proceeding in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted and published manuscript

§ 3

[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected fabrication of data]

Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.

Proceeding in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted and published manuscript

§ 4

[Rules of procedure in the case of an application to modify the list of authors]

Proceeding in the case where a correspondence author requests that another author be added or deleted before and after publication of a manuscript

§ 5

[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship]

1) A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.

2) A guest author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication).

3) A gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.

Proceeding in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship

§ 6

[Rules of conduct in the event of a suspected undisclosed conflict of interest]

A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.

Proceeding in the case where the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript and where the reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

§ 7

[Rules of conduct in the case of a suspected ethical problem with a submitted manuscript]

Proceeding where the editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

§ 8

[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected misappropriation of author's ideas or data by the reviewer]

Proceeding in the event of a suspicion that the reviewer has misappropriated the author's ideas or data

§ 9

[Rules for responding to whistleblowers]

Rules for responding to whistleblowers who have raised their concerns directly or via social media

 

Indexing

European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ);BazEkon; The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CEJSH); Biblioteka Nauki; MOST Wiedzy, Wolters Kluwer on-line (LEX).

 

Plagiarism check

To maintain high standards of scholarly integrity, all texts proposed for publication in Administrative Law Review are subject to plagiarism check. The editorial board uses Quetext software as a plagiarism checker.

 

Fees for publication

The authors are not charged any fees to be paid to the editorial board. Publishing in Administrative Law Review is completely free of charge.

 

Archiving policy

According to regulations applicable in the territory of the Republic of Poland, the publisher shall transfer copies of Administrative Law Review to authorised libraries. The National Library in Warsaw and the Jagiellonian Library in Krakow are given two copies each, one of which is to be archived for perpetuity.

The digital version of the journal is also subject to archiving. All the materials sent to the editorial board and their final versions published on-line are stored on the OJS platform with no temporal restrictions. In addition, the full versions of articles published in Administrative Law Review along with their metadata are archived permanently in many repositories, including the Digital Library of UMCS, which renders its digital resources accessible to all interested Internet users.

 

Repository policy

The editorial board allows authors to deposit all versions of their articles in  repositories of their choice. This applies to both pre-publication and post-publication versions. If a pre-publication version is posted (e.g. a typescript, version without formatting used by the editorial board, without editorial corrections, before reviews), it should be clearly specified in the content of the article that it is a pre-publication version. When depositing the published version of the article, the title of the journal must be specified.

 

Reviewers list

Vol. 10 (2025)

  • Cezary Błaszczyk, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Leszek Ćwikła, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Marlena Drapalska-Grochowicz, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Marzena Dyjakowska, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Izabela Florczak,  University of Lodz, Poland
  • Maciej Gapski, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Iwona Gęsicka, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Agnieszka Gruszczyńska, SWPS University, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Anna Haładyj, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Jacek Janowski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Dagmara Jaroszewska-Choraś, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Anna Kalisz, District Court for Warsaw-Wola in Warsaw, Poland
  • Jarosław Kowalski, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Adam Niewiadomski, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Piotr Przybysz, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Ewa Radecka, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Karolina Rokicka-Murszewska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Beata Sadowska, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Lucyna Staniszewska,  Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Małgorzata Szalewska, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Michał Szczegielniak, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Mariola Szewczak-Daniel, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Ewa Szewczyk, University of Zielona Góra, Poland
  • Piotr Świerczyński, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland
  • Alina Walenia, University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Rafał Wojciechowski, University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Tomasz Woś, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Elżbieta Zębek, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland


Vol. 9 (2025)

  • Agata Barczewska-Dziobek, University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Katarzyna Czerwińska-Koral, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Daria Danecka, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Adam Habuda, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Hubert Izdebski, SWPS University, Poland
  • Aleksander Jakubowski, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Piotr Janiak, University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Wioletta Jedlecka, University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Monika Kępa, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Helena Kisilowska, Casimir Pulaski University of Radom, Poland
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Piotr Kobylski, Casimir Pulaski University of Radom, Poland
  • Wojciech Konaszczuk, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Anna Kosińska, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Dawid Kostecki, Kozminski University, Poland
  • Małgorzata Kozłowska, University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Sylwia Łakoma, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Przemysław Panfil, University of Gdańsk, Poland
  • Mateusz Pszczyński, University of Opole, Poland
  • Michał Rudy, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Kamila Sobieraj, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Dominik Sypniewski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Adam Szafrański, University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Marzena Świstak, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Jacek Trzewik, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Jacek Wantoch-Rekowski, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Tomasz Woś, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Marta Woźniak, University of Opole, Poland
  • Marek Woźnicki, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland


Vol. 8 (2024)

  • Jolanta Chluska, Czestochowa University of Technology, Poland
  • Anna Fermus-Bobowiec, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Joanna Jagoda, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Wioletta Jedlecka, University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Anna Kalisz, District Court for Warsaw-Wola in Warsaw, Poland
  • Robert Kędziora, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Magdalena Kisała, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Adam Kozień, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
  • Emilia Kudasik-Gil, District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Krakow, Poland
  • Marek Michalski, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
  • Małgorzata Ofiarska, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Karolina Rokicka-Murszewska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Piotr Ruczkowski, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Agnieszka Serlikowska, District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Ewelina Streit-Browarna, Bar Association in Rzeszów, Poland
  • Mariola Szewczak-Daniel, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Bogusław Ulijasz, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Paweł Zieniuk, Cracow University of Economics, Poland


Vol. 7 (2024)

  • Małgorzata Cilak, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Agata Czarnecka, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Krzysztof Dobieżyński, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Łukasz Dubiński, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Paweł Fajgielski, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Teresa Gardocka, SWPS University, Poland
  • Ilona Grądzka, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Joanna Jagoda, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Anna Kalisz, District Court for Warsaw-Wola in Warsaw, Poland
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Monika Kępa, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Marcin Konarski, Warsaw Management University, Poland
  • Magdalena Kuszmider, DBM Law Firm of Attorneys-at-Law, Poland
  • Wojciech Lis, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Piotr Listos, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland
  • Michał Marszelewski, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Andrzej Niezgoda, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Jakub Polanowski, Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin, Poland
  • Bartosz Rakoczy, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Karolina Rokicka-Murszewska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Maciej Serowaniec, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Izabela Skoczeń, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland



Vol. 6 (2023)

  • Adam Balicki, Complex of Vocational and General Education Schools in Biłgoraj, Poland
  • Kazimierz Bandarzewski, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
  • Łukasz Dubiński, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Anna Fogel, District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Warsaw, Poland
  • Ilona Grądzka, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Anna Kalisz, District Court for Warsaw-Wola in Warsaw, Poland
  • Monika Kapusta, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Karolina Karpus, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Piotr Kobylski, Casimir Pulaski University of Radom, Poland
  • Ewa Koniuszewska, University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Jakub Kosowski, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Emilia Kudasik-Gil, District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Krakow, Poland
  • Michał Leciak, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Wojciech Lis, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Hubert Mielnik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Agnieszka Piskorz-Ryń, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
  • Jakub Polanowski, Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin, Poland
  • Magdalena Pyter, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Michał Rudy, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Zofia Sokołowicz, University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Ewelina Streit-Browarna, Bar Association in Rzeszów, Poland
  • Małgorzata Szalewska, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Małgorzata Szreniawska, Jan Zamoyski College of Humanities and Economics in Zamość, Poland
  • Piotr Szreniawski, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Piotr Szulc, District Chamber of Legal Advisors in Poznań, Poland
  • Tomasz Woźniak, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Anna Wójcik, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Joanna Wyporska-Frankiewicz, University of Lodz, Poland


Vol. 5 (2022)

  • Oskar Bodanka, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Grzegorz Bzdyrak, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Monika Dudek, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Mariusz Filipek, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Maciej Gapski, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Marta Grzeszczuk, WSEI University, Poland
  • Jacek Janowski, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Anna Kalisz, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Rafał Kamiński, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Grzegorz Krawiec, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Paweł Majka, University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Katarzyna Mełgieś, Casimir Pulaski University of Radom, Poland
  • Andrzej Paduch, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Jakub Polanowski, Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin, Poland
  • Karolina Rokicka-Murszewska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Piotr Ruczkowski, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Marcin Sala-Szczypiński, Regional Chamber of Legal Advisers in Cracow, Poland
  • Dorota Semków, University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Ewelina Streit-Browarna, Bar Association in Rzeszów, Poland
  • Wojciech Włoch, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 


Vol. 4 (2021)

  • Justyna Batkowska, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland
  • Krzysztof Dobieżyński, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Anna Drywa, University of Gdańsk, Poland
  • Agnieszka Franczak, Cracow University of Economics, Poland
  • Mariusz Krawczyk, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
  • Magdalena Michalak, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Hubert Mielnik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Maciej Mikliński, University of Gdańsk, Poland
  • Szymon Obuchowski, University of Gdańsk, Poland
  • Jakub Polanowski, Voivodeship Administrative Court in Lublin, Poland
  • Grzegorz Smyk, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Paweł Szczęśniak, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Jakub Szremski, University of Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Małgorzata Szreniawska, Jan Zamoyski College of Humanities and Economics in Zamość, Poland
  • Katarzyna Twarowska-Mól, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Wojciech Wytrążek, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland


Vol. 3 (2020)

  • Tomasz Budzyński, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Lesia Danyliuk, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ukraine
  • Krzysztof Dobieżyński, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Mariusz Filipek, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Maciej Gapski, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Joanna Jagoda, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Robert Kędziora, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Magdalena Kisała, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Nadiia Kobetska, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ukraine
  • Katarzyna Kokocińska, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Grzegorz Koksanowicz, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Marcin Konarski, Warsaw Management University, Polska
  • Wojciech Konaszczuk, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Marian Masternak, Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Andrzej Niezgoda, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Wojciech Piątek, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Maciej Podleśny, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Krzysztof Prokop, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Polska
  • Agata Przylepa-Lewak, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Piotr Rączka, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Karolina Rokicka-Murszewska, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Piotr Ruczkowski, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Wojciech Sawczyn, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Robert Sawuła, WSPiA University of Rzeszow, Poland
  • Delaine Swenson, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Dorota Sylwestrzak, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
 
Vol. 2 (2019)
  • Anna Daniluk-Jarmoniuk, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Krzysztof Dobieżyński, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Anna Fermus-Bobowiec, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Mariusz Filipek, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Maciej Gapski, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Olena Hafurowa, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
  • Nina Kamenska, Poltava University of Economics and Trade, Ukraine
  • Robert Kędziora, Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Monika Kępa, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Zbigniew Kmiecik, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Nadiia Kobetska, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, Ukraine
  • Jarosław Kostrubiec, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Katarzyna Mełgieś, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Katarzyna Miaskowska-Daszkiewicz, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Andrzej Niezgoda, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Paweł Nowik, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Wojciech Piątek, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Piotr Ruczkowski, Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Michał Zalewski, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland
  • Agnieszka Żywicka, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland
 
Vol. 1 (2018)
  • Tomáš Alman, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Slovakia
  • Justyna Batkowska, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Poland
  • Taras Gurzhii, Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics, Ukraine
  • Olena Hafurova, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
  • Radosław Pastuszko, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland