“Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis.Studia Historicolitteraria” is a scoring journal, which means that it is subject to periodic formal and content-related evaluation by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
The journal has adopted and applies the principles of publication ethics consistent with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The following principles have been developed on the basis of criteria and assessment procedure for academic journals adopted by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 20 September 2018 on de minimis aid under the "Support for academic journals" programme and Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 7 November 2018 on drawing up lists of publications of academic monographs and academic journals and reviewed materials from international conferences).

 

Selection rules and procedure for reviewing texts

1. Texts sent by Authors to the Editorial Office of "Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis.Studia Historicolitteraria” are subject to preliminary verification by the Editorial Board as regards formal (compliance of the typescript with the technical and editorial requirements) and substantive (compliance with the journal's profile) requirements. Detailed information is available on the tab List of technical and substantive requirements for submitted manuscripts. Articles are checked for plagiarism before publication. 

2. Papers initially accepted are then sent for further substantive evaluation to two independent external reviewers (outside the Pedagogical University), appointed from among the most outstanding specialists in the discipline of the paper.

3. The Editorial Board shall ensure that there is no conflict of interest (in particular, official or personal relations) between authors and reviewersThe reviewing process is confidential and takes place according to the model in which the author and reviewer do not know each other’s identities (double-blind review process). The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal is available on its website and in the editorial footer.

4. Reviews are written and descriptive.In their assessment, the reviewer takes into account whether the text meets the criteria of an academic paper, and then assesses its originality and substantive value, as well as its linguistic and stylistic form. All comments, amendments and suggestions for possible changes are placed by the reviewer in the text of the document so that the author can read them and take them into account in the final version of the text.The review shall end with an unequivocal request for acceptance or non-acceptance of the article for publication.

5. In order for an article to be allowed to be printed, it is necessary to obtain two positive reviews.In the event of a significant divergence of assessments, the editorial board may decide to appoint a third reviewer.

In order to ensure the reliability and quality of research of papers published in the annual, and to eliminate unethical practices like ghostwriting and guest authorship, the Editors of "Studia Historicolitteraria" require collective authors to disclose the actual contribution of individual authors who have contributed to their formation (indicating their affiliation and information, on who is the author of the concept, assumptions and methodology, with the exact indication concerning which part of the paper was written by each of them, and finally identifying the entities participating in its creation and funding of research).

The editorial staff reminds authors that the phenomenon of ghostwriting is when someone contributed significantly to the creation of a paper without revealing his or her contribution as one of the authors, or without mentioning his or her role in the acknowledgements contained in the publication. Guest authorship is when the author's participation is negligible or non-existent, and yet such a person is mentioned as the author or co-author of the paper.