Archival page of the journal

pkhn en

The current information about the journal is available at  http://ejournals.eu/sj/index.php/SHS/

WERSJA POLSKA


 

Peer Review procedure

 

Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science attach 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 the paper published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education “Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce” (2011) [Review procedures in science: good practices].

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

A. 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.

B. The text is reviewed internally with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal (see bookmark: About the journal ― Thematic scope of the journal and The sections of the journal). Then, in case of a positive evaluation, the text is checked against the formatting guidelines of the journal (see bookmark: Guidelines for Authors, 7. Text formatting ― guideliness).

C. After the possible deficiencies of the text, indicated by the Editorial Committee (composed of Scientific Editors and Language Editors), have been removed, the text will be assessed by 2-4 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.

D. 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.

E. After the imperfections, which have been indicated by the Reviewers and the Editorial Committee, have been removed by the Author, the Editorial Committee 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.

F. 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.

G. No texts will be published to which the Author have neither moral nor economic rights or which infringe on personal rights of other people (see bookmark: Ethical and legal issues).

H. A list of Reviewers is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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. Available online (in Polish): http://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/dobre_praktyki.pdf (29.11.2014).