FAQ

The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. New Series

Jagiellonian University in Krakow logo

Procedures for external peer review

Peer review rules

This Journal follows the guidelines of double-blind review as recommended by Elsevier (for more information, please visit: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review/peer-review-guidelines). Accordingly, both the reviewer’s and author’s identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process, which is supervised by the editors. Authors’ names should therefore not appear on manuscripts and any reference to the authors’ previous works should be in the third person. The submitted work must not be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. It is the responsibility of the authors to obtain permission to use any previously published material.

 

1. The first assessment of the text is made internally by the editorial board of the publication to check the completeness of the content in question and determine whether it meets the formal requirements for texts included in the publication. If any irregularities are found, the article is sent back to the author to complete/correct.

2. At the second stage, the article is subject to a double “blind" review – i.e. without revealing the names of the authors, the article is directed to two independent substantive reviewers who are experts in the field of the published text. The editorial board does its utmost to ensure that they are people whose competence is confirmed by academic achievements, and who also have a reputation for reliable reviews.

3. The reviewer expresses his or her opinion by completing a questionnaire assessment, including open and closed questions that aim to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the text. The reviewer may also indicate errors or omissions in the article, as well as reserving the right to suggest changes to which the author is obliged to respond.

4. The article is evaluated in terms of:

- compliance with the profile of the publication;

- substantive accuracy;

- originality and novelty;

- clarity and consistency of argument;

- sufficient justification of opinion;

- sufficient regard for source materials and literature for the purposes of realising the objectives of the article;

-  linguistic accuracy;

-  correctness and accuracy of typography.

The review form can be read here.

5. The editorial board, based on the assessments of the reviewers, decide whether to accept the article for publication, reject it or refer the article for improvement. In ambiguous cases (e.g. when one review is negative but the other recommends the article for publication) the editors may refer the article for a third review. The authors are informed of the editors’ decision by email.

6. The list of reviewers is published once a year on the website of the publication.