Instructions for Peer Reviewers

 

 

GENERAL GUIDELINES

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 Editorial Board greatly appreciates collaboration with Researchers who share their expert knowledge and thus support the Authors and the Editorial Board of the journal.

An article submitted for publication in the journal Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science is subject to the so-called double-blind reviewing procedure. In this process the article is sent to 2-4 Peer Reviewers. The Author is not informed who is reviewing the text and the Peer Reviewer does not know the identity of the Author the evaluated article.

 

A peer review should be:

a) prepared on the peer review form;
b) sent to the Editorial Board by e-mail (or via our electronic editorial system on the Portal of Scientific Journals) and also by mail within 30 days from the date of receipt of the article for review.

 

NOTE:
If the Peer Reviewers cannot review the article within the deadline, They should immediately inform the Editorial Board.

 

 

LIST OF PEER REVIEWERS OF THE JOURNAL

In accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland, the List of Peer Reviewers of the journal is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal (see bookmark: Peer Reviewers).

 

 

GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE ARTICLE

The reviewers are requested to provide a detailed evaluation of the contents of the article by answering, among others, the following questions:

• Does the abstract summarize the content of the article in a clear and concise manner?
• Have the keywords been chosen correctly?
• Is the purpose of the article clearly stated and has it been achieved?
• Have the research methods been determined and are they appropriate for the aim of the research?
• Does the study introduce a new approach to the subject matter and contributes to the development of the history of science?
• Has the study been correctly organized and internally structured?
• Is the content of the study clearly presented?
• Is the selection of the sources and the literature complete?
• Is the study written correctly in its formal aspect (i.e. linguistic correctness, style, footnotes, bibliography)?

 

NOTE:
If the article contains language defects that hinder understanding of the text, Reviewers should indicate that in the peer review. However, in principle, it should not be the only reason for rejecting the article, because journal language Editors will try to improve the linguistic layer of the article.

 

 

COPYRIGHT

Peer Reviewers are asked to express their opinion whether the article bears the signs of plagiarism according to the copyright law.

 

 

FINAL EVALUATION OF THE ARTICLE (Options)

Accepted for publication in Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science:

• no alterations suggested
• small changes suggested (no second peer review), requires:

-  editing

-  cutting

-  expanding

-  completing missing references

-  other changes

• significant corrections suggested (second peer review required).

Rejected from publication in Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science.

 

 

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

The Peer Reviewer should justify why the article has been accepted or rejected.

If the article requires changes, the Peer Reviewer should indicate the proposed changes in a transparent manner.

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

EDITAGE
2013: Most common reasons for journal rejections. Available online: http://www.editage.com/insights/most-common-reasons-for-journal-rejections.

 

MINISTERSTWO NAUKI I SZKOLNICTWA WYŻSZEGO
2011: Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Available online: http://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/dobre_praktyki.pdf (29.11.2014).

 

PIERSON David J.
2004: The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care 49(10), pp. 1246–1252. Available online: http://www.rcjournal.com/contents/10.04/10.04.1246.pdf.

 

THROWER Peter
2012: Eight reasons I rejected your article. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article.

 

 

 

NOTE:

In case of doubt, please contact the Editorial Board:

 

Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU — Redakcja
ul. Sławkowska 17, 31-016 Kraków, Poland
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Phone (+48) 12 424 02 02