The Editorial Team greatly appreciates collaboration with Researchers who share their expert knowledge and thus support the Authors and the Editorial Team of the journal.

Editors and reviewers are requested to treat submissions in strict confidence.

The so-called research article or the so-called research note (limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations) submitted for publication in the journal  Studia Historiae Scientiarum  is subject to the so-called double-blind reviewing procedure. In this process the text is sent to 2-5 Peer Reviewers. The Author is not informed who is reviewing the text and the Peer Reviewer does not know the identity of the Author the evaluated article.

A peer review should be:

• prepared on the  Peer review form  (for download below)
• ▪ sent to the Editorial Team by e-mail (or via  our electronic editorial system) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the article for review.

Note:  If the Peer Reviewers cannot review the article within the deadline, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team.

List of Peer Reviewers of the journal

List of Peer Reviewers of the journal is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal (see bookmark: Reviewers).

General evaluation of the article

The reviewers are requested to provide an evaluation of the contents of the article by answering, among others, the following questions:

• Does the abstract summarize the content of the article in a clear and concise manner?
• Have the keywords been chosen correctly?
• Is the purpose of the article clearly stated and has it been achieved?
• Have the research methods been determined and are they appropriate for the aim of the research?
• Does the study introduce a new approach to the subject matter and contributes to the development of the history of science?
• Has the study been correctly organized and internally structured?
• Is the content of the study clearly presented?
• Is the selection of the sources and the literature complete?
• Is the study written correctly in its formal aspect (i.e. linguistic correctness, style, footnotes, bibliography)?

Note:  If the article contains language defects that hinder understanding of the text, Reviewers should indicate that in the peer review. However, in principle, it should not be the only reason for rejecting the article, because journal language Editors will try to improve the linguistic layer of the article.

Copyright

Peer Reviewers are asked to express their opinion whether the article bears the signs of plagiarism according to the copyright law.
 

Final evaluation of the article (Options)

• Accepted for publication in  Studia Historiae Scientiarum : no alterations suggested;
• small changes suggested (no second peer review), requires:
  • editing 
  • cutting
  • expanding
  • completing missing references
  • other changes
• Significant corrections suggested (second peer review required).
• Rejected from publication in  Studia Historiae Scientiarum . 

Comments and suggested amendments

The Peer Reviewer should justify why the article has been accepted or rejected. If the article requires changes, the Peer Reviewer should indicate the proposed changes in a transparent manner.

Note:  In case of any doubt, please contact the Editorial Team via email at  shs@pau.krakow.pl  or by mail/phone:  Studia Historiae Scientiarum.  Komisja Historii Nauki PAU, ul. Sławkowska 17, pok. 2, 31-016 Kraków, POLAND; Tel.: (+48) 12 424 02 02; Fax: (+48) 12 422 54 22.