Review procedure
The Board of Editors makes a preliminary selection of articles in relation to their conformity with the thematic profile and the formal requirements of the periodical and with the standards of scholarly publication. Subsequently the articles are forwarded to outside reviewers.
The process of reviewing texts submitted to Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae follows the double-blind review rule, i.e. the identities of the authors are unknown to the reviewers and vice-versa; in other cases, the reviewer signs a statement on the absence of a conflict of interests.
The reviewed aspects are: the concept of the study (choice of topic, assumptions), its methodology (selection and application of the method of analysis), the narration (clarity of argumentation, appropriateness of style) and editorial correctness (suitable title, division into subsections, footnotes).
The reviewer submits his/her opinion in writing, stating the reasons for the article’s rejection or the conditions that must be met for it to be accepted for publication. The author is requested to comment on the reviewer’s remarks. The reviewers, experts in a given field from Poland or abroad, are carefully selected by the Editorial Board. Each article is reviewed by two experts, and in the cases of contradicting assessments, a third reviewer is called.
The final decision on the acceptance/rejection of the text is taken by the Board of Editors based on the reviewers’ opinions and the author’s comments. If a controversy arises, the Board of Editors may appoint another reviewer. Rejected materials are not returned.
For Authors
Authors who submit their papers for publication in Fasciculi Archaeologiae Historicae agree for their papers to undergo a reviewing process.
Submitted papers are first assessed by the Editorial Board. The Board assesses papers from a formal and factual point of view. The Board reserves the right to reject a paper if a preliminary assessment of it is too negative with regard to the Board’s editorial principles.
Submitted papers are sent to reviewers on condition that they have not been published elsewhere or have not been submitted for publication in other journals.
Papers are then reviewed by two reviewers who are specialists in a given field and are not members of the Board. Persons who may be in conflict of interest with authors are not allowed to review papers, either. The reviewing process goes in a confidential manner and is reciprocally anonymous. Reviewers are not allowed to make use of their knowledge about the paper prior to its publication.
A final decision on acceptance for publication is made by the Editor.
The Board reserves the right to suggest corrections on the basis of opinions of its members or suggestions from reviewers. After a final acceptance for publication the paper undergoes a further editorial and copy-editing process.
For reviewers
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. They must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the Editor-in-Chief if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author's side. They must evaluate the submitted works objectively as well as present their opinions on the works in a clear way in the review form. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process. If the member of the editorial board is the author of the article all decisions related to the publication of the text are passed of the other member of the editorial board.
The review takes place in a form available on-line. They are evaluated:
- Subject, article content, composition
- Innovativeness
- Quality of applied methods
- Significance of obtained results
- Level of use of literature on the subject
- Language accuracy, style
- Illustrations number, quality and adequacy
The reviewer has 7 days from the moment of sending the invitation to accept it, and from the moment of accepting it – 4 weeks to complete the review.
