ETHICAL STANDARDS
The prevention of publication malpractice is one of journal’s important responsibilities. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and journal editors doesn't tolerate plagiarism in any form.

Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
Plagiarism is considered to be: identical copying, remix (one person collects information from various sources and mix all together as a single document and claim the work as their own work), copying without citation, self-plagiarism (the act of borrowing from one’s own previous document without a proper citation), when the citation is inaccurate or it will lead to non-existing resources etc.

 

Our journal does not charge publications fees and does not pay for submitted articles.

 

DUTIES OF AUTHORS
The Authors are expected to be aware of, and comply with the best practice in publication ethics.
• Authorship: authorship over the work submitted to „Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historicolitteraria” should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. Major changes in response to reviewer comments, e.g. adding new data might justify the inclusion of a new author.
• Originality: authors must ensure that the work they submitted is entirely original. The authors bear full responsibility for any case of plagiarism, whether it was discovered during the review process or after the publication in the journal.
• Acknowledgement of Sources: authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work. All sources should be cited according to standards of citing the sources.
• Reporting Standards: authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
• Concurrent Publications: the journal's editors doesn't accept simultaneous submissions and the authors shouldn't concurrently submit the same work to journals other that „Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historicolitteraria”. It is also expected that the author will not publish works describing the same research in more than one journal. Translations are acceptable but must reference the original.
• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: if at any point of time, author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the work submitted to and published by „Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historicolitteraria”, the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.

DUTIES OF EDITORS
Each submission is initially evaluated by the journal’s editors who decide whether or not it is suitable to be considered for publication.
After the initial evaluation, all research papers are checked for originality, using appropriate channels to do so, and then forwarded to two independent external reviewers for two separate blind peer reviews. Each reviewer will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or ask to modify the manuscript.
The journal’s editors make sure that each received submission is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, religion or lack thereof, origin, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
The journal’s editors must ensure that information regarding authors’ submissions is kept confidential.
The journal’s editors will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted contributions for their own research without written consent of the author.

DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All manuscripts submitted to „Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Historicolitteraria” are initially assessed by the journal’s editors who decide whether or not the received submission is suitable to be considered for publication. Research articles considered suitable for publication are subject to an international double blind peer review process conducted by a minimum of two independent external experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. If an agreement is not reached by the initial two reviewers, the submission is sent to a third reviewer in order to reach a final decision about accepting or rejecting the work.
The journal strives to make the peer review process as open as possible, and authors can expect to see a full disclosure of the comments provided by the reviewers to editors.
The processing, reviewing and publishing generally lasts up to 24 weeks from the moment of the submission of the article.

REVIEWER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The reviewers are required to review only manuscripts for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
After receiving the invitation to review the manuscript, the reviewers are required to immediately notify the editors whenever they feel unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or sees difficulties to meet the deadline for the completion of the review.
After the manuscript has been accepted for the review, the reviewers are required to prepare the review within 6 weeks at the latest.
The reviewers are required to write all reviews in Polish or English and include comments on article orientation, originality and scientific/research value, article goal, methodology, achieved results, discussion, references and quality of quality of the scientific language.
The reviewers are required to inform the editors if there is any possible conflict of interest related to the assigned manuscript. For example, in case the reviewer is invited to review the manuscript of his or her colleague from the same institution etc.
The reviewers are required to treat the manuscript in a confidential manner and not to use any part of the content of the reviewed manuscript for their future research as the reviewing manuscript is not published yet.
The main task of reviewers is an objective assessment of the quality of the manuscript and be constructively critical.
The reviewers are required to inform the editors whenever they find similarities between the reviewed manuscript and another article either published or under consideration to another journal.

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR
All allegations of the ethical misconduct are taken seriously, and full investigation will take place. All suspected ethical misconduct will be solved according to the Core Practices and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts recommendation.
Minor misconduct should be dealt without the need to be consulted more deeply. In any event, the authors must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations and must be given the chance for reasonable explanation.
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be informed. The editors, in consultation with the publisher, must make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
In case the editors has clear evidence that the findings presented within a publication are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct, or honest error, the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification, the published material constitutes plagiarism, or reports unethical research, the published materials will be retracted in accordance to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).