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.
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.