1. Papers that fit into the thematic scope of the journal and meet the formal publication criteria are accepted for publication (Information for authors).
2. An article submitted for publication in the journal should be prepared in such a way that its author cannot be identified (without the author’s personal details and references that could indicate the author of the publication).
3. The first stage involves a preliminary verification of the article by the journal’s editor-in-chief, who reserves the right to assess the compliance of the text with the journal’s profile. In the event of a negative assessment, the decision is consulted with the scientific council, whose opinion is final. The author receives the decision about the manuscript being rejected within 4 weeks after its submission.
4. After obtaining a positive opinion of the editor-in-chief, the manuscripts are sent to two independent reviewers.
5. The editorial board selects reviewers who are specialists in a given subject. It also makes sure that there is no conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author, i.e. there is no:
6. Reviewers cannot come from the research institution the same as the author’s affiliation. The double-blind review process is applied, which means that neither the author nor the reviewers know each other’s identity. Reviewers are obliged not to use knowledge about the reviewed article before its publication.
7. Within no more than 2 months, reviewers submit their substantive opinions to the editor-in-chief, who then forwards them to the author. The following criteria should be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the reviewed work: compliance of the article with its title, use of appropriate research methodology, innovative nature of the work, use of the literature of the subject and linguistic and stylistic accuracy of the text.
8. The review must end with an unambiguous conclusion regarding the conditions of accepting the manuscript for publication or its rejection.
9. The editorial board sends the review to the author. Within 4 weeks, the author is obliged to submit a declaration that they have taken into consideration the reviewers’ comments, or a declaration containing the explanation why they have not complied with the proposed changes and corrections (Declaration concerning the reviewers’ comments). The final decision about the manuscript is made by the journal’s editor-in-chief.
10. After receiving one negative review, the members of the scientific council decide to reject the article or appoint a third reviewer. The final decision is made by the journal’s editor-in-chief and it is not subject to appeal. After receiving two negative reviews, the manuscript is not accepted for publication.
11. The reviewers’ names are listed on the journal’s website after the publication of a given issue.
Prof. Dr. Bernhard Brehmer (Universität Greifswald, Institut für Slawistik)
prof. dr hab. Danuta Bieńkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź)
prof. dr hab. Zofia Czapiga (Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Rzeszów)
dr hab. Lucyna Agnieszka Jankowiak, prof. IS PAN (Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk)
prof. dr hab. Władysława Książek-Bryłowa (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin)
dr hab. prof. UAM Tadeusz Lewaszkiewicz (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań)
dr hab. prof. UG Zoja Nowożenowa (Uniwersytet Gdański, Gdańsk)
prof. dr hab. Alicja Pihan-Kijasowa (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań)
dr hab. Anna Kozłowska (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie)
dr hab. prof. UAM Anna Piotrowicz (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań)
dr hab. Joanna Rychter, prof. AJP (Akademia im. Jakuba z Paradyża w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim)
prof. dr hab. Elżbieta Skorupska-Raczyńska (Akademia im. Jakuba z Paradyża w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim)
dr hab. prof. UB Urszula Sokólska (Uniwersytet Białostocki, Białystok)
dr hab. Joanna Szczęk (Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wrocław)
prof. dr hab. Małgorzata Święcicka (Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego, Bydgoszcz)
dr hab. prof. UAM Janusz Taborek (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań)
