The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum attaches great importance to fair procedures for peer review of texts submitted for publication in the journal as a means to foster its scientific and editorial development.

The journal puts into practice the ideas presented in specialist studies describing the good practices of the reviewing procedure – see Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017; 2022; Hames 2016.

Each text submitted to the journal undergoes the following review assessment procedure:

• In the peer review process, the principle of no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers is respected, i.e. the Reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review.
• The submitted text receives an ID number, which will be used in the subsequent stages of the review procedure to ensure the anonymity of the Author.
• To check the originality of the text, it is checked by the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism service.
• In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
• In the opposite case, the text is reviewed internally with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope).
• In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
• In the opposite case, the text is checked against the formatting guidelines of the journal (see bookmark: Guidelines for Authors, 6. Manuscript template and text formatting ― guidelines).
• In the case of texts that are: 1) editorial commentaries, 2) interviews or recollections, 3) discussions or publication reviews, 4) reprints, 5) polemics, 6) news and conference reports, and reports on the activity of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, immediately after editorial internal review, the texts are subject to languistic proofreadings (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
• In the case of texts that are: 1) the so-called research articles or 2) the so-called research notes (limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations), after the possible deficiencies of the texts indicated by the Editorial Team have been removed, the texts will be assessed additionally by 2 – 5 independent external Reviewers, whose respective identities will remain concealed (double-blind review). There can also be no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers, i.e. the reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review. The texts are subject subsequently to linguistic proofreading (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
• Based on the opinion of the Reviewers, the article might be accepted for publication without changes, conditionally accepted (necessary corrections, cuts or amendments by Author indicated) or rejected.
• After the imperfections, which have been indicated by the Reviewers and the Editorial Team, have been removed by the Author, the Editorial Team takes the final decision to accept the text for publication or reject it, and will inform the Author (or the Co-author who is the contact person) about their decision concerning the publication.
• After the possible changes, proofreading and initial DTP, the article will be presented to the Author for final proofreading and then be accepted for publication.
• The Editorial Team refuses to publish the article if: a) the essence of the text is not consistent with the profile and quality of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope); b) the Author has neither moral nor economic rights to the text; c) the text infringes on personal rights of other people (see bookmark: Legal and Ethical Principles); d) the Author does not agree to introduce the necessary corrections proposed by the Editorial Team.
• A list of Reviewers is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal.

BIBLIOGRPAHY

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2. URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2022: Core practices. URL: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices (accessed on 8 September 2022).
3. Hames, Irene 2016: Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Science Editing 2016/3(1), pp. 36–42. URL: https://www.escienceediting.org/upload/se-3-1-36.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).
4. Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce [Review procedures in science: good practices]. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. URL: https://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/dobre_praktyki.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).