Papers submitted to the Review of Historical Sciences are evaluated according to the substantive and ethical criteria. The risk of possible defamation of third parties, infringement of copyright and other intellectual property rights as well as plagiarism and doubts about authorship or co-authorship of the publication (ghostwriting and guest authorship) is taken into account.
The standards of publication ethics and scientific accuracy in force in our journal are in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Details of these rules are available on the COPE website.
1. The texts submitted for publication must be fully original, unpublished before, and cannot be submitted for publication in any other journal or collective journal.
2. All authors or co-authors should significantly contribute to the paper. Other persons who could have had an impact on some important aspects of the publication may be listed as co-workers, never as co-authors. It is the responsibility of the author who submits the paper to ensure that its final version was accepted by all co-authors.
3. The author who submits the paper is required to disclose the funding sources for the publication.
4. The way the text is edited should enable verification of assertions, evidence and findings. References and/or footnotes are required.
5. Ghostwriting, plagiarism, unauthorized use of someone else’s research and guest authorship are strictly forbidden and will be revealed; in critical situations, legal actions shall be taken.
Editorial Board’s responsibilities
1. All submitted texts are subject to review and verification.
2. The Editorial Board sends all submitted texts to reviewers, taking into account their qualifications and competence. The qualifications and competence are basic criteria for choosing a reviewer of a given text. The Editorial Board takes into account possible conflicts of interests when choosing reviewers. The review process is arranged by double blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.
3. The Editorial Board can disclose information on papers submitted for publication to no one but authors themselves, chosen reviewers, authorized editors and publishers.
4. The final decision on publication of a text is made by the Editorial Board during the meeting approving the contents of every next issue of the journal.
5. Unpublished papers or their parts cannot be used by the Editors’ Office without written permission of the authors.
1. The purpose of the reviews is to evaluate the quality of submitted texts in order to enable making a decision on acceptance for printing or rejection of a given text. In case of a positive evaluation of the text, the reviewing comments should be formulated to improve the quality of the text.
2. The reviews shall be objective, content-related, written in accordance with the principle of confidentiality. The reviews are sent by the reviewers to the Editorial Board only.
3. The reviewers are obliged to report immediately every noticed instance of violation of good practice, including plagiarism, guest authorship and ghostwriting.
4. The reviewers have no right to use peer-reviewed texts or its excerpts for their own purposes.
5. The reviewers are obliged to inform the Editorial Board on the conflict of interest if there is one.
The definitions of good practice, ghostwriting and guest authorship are consistent with definitions by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education available on the website of the Ministry.