The Editorial Team takes care of the high quality of published materials and takes action against neglect of publication standards in the journal. All parties involved in the publication process: the author, the editor of the scientific journal, the reviewer of the scientific work and the publisher are obliged to comply with ethical standards in scientific publications and the recommendations of the COPE Committee on Publication Ethics Articles published in the journal are subject to a detailed peer-review process designed to guarantee readers a high scientific quality. The editors use the „double blind review proces” model. Each review is made in writing and ends with an unambiguous recommendation from the reviewer.

  1. General positions:

    All the papers, sent to „The Scientific Journal of the Institute of Women's Studies” editorial board, undergo the peer reviewing.

    1. Two independent reviewers from outside the unit where the author (authors) are employed are appointed to evaluate each publication.
    2. The author (authors) and reviewers do not know their identities (the so-called "double-blind review process").
    3. The review is in a written and electronic form, and sent to the editorial office ends with an unambiguous request for the article to be published, rejected or sent back for corrections. (see detailed procedure)
    4. In the case of texts written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the author of the work.
    5. The rules for qualifying the publication and the review form are available on the Journal's website.
    6. The names of the reviewers of individual publications / issues are not disclosed; the journal publishes the list of reviewers.
    7. The reviewers of the first stage of the evaluation are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. (see detailed procedure).
    8. The authors declare the originality of the submitted text.
    9. After the publication is accepted by the Editorial Board, it is qualified to the thematic area in consultation with the thematic editor.
    10. The author (s) confirms that the submitted study is the original author's text and is not related to the phenomenon of ghostwriting and guest authorship.
    11. Editors document all manifestations of scientific misconduct.
    12. Good practices in reviewing procedures:
      1. Good practices in scientific reviewing procedures. Warsaw: Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Information available online: (29.11.2014).
      2. Most common reasons for journal rejections. Available online:
  2. Goals and tasks:

    The peer reviewing is aimed to provide and ensure the publication of valid and trustworthy information, aiding the development of weapons history knowledge both in Poland and abroad. The task of peer reviewing is the unbiased evaluation of scientific and practical significance of papers submitted. The evaluation peer reviewing is anonymous that is a reviewer does not know writer’s name and vice versa.

  3. Procedure for organizing and conducting of peer reviewing:

    Each paper, submitted to „The Scientific Journal of the Institute of Women's Studies” editorial board, is received by the editor-in-chief, tested against the requirements on preparation, and registered. All the submitted papers are analyzed by the members of the editorial board as well. In case of positive decision by most of the editorial board members, writer is informed about the acceptance of the paper for evaluation peer reviewing. The editor-in-chief chooses the proper reviewer, sends him or her the paper within a week, and receives the assent or reject to peer review from the reviewer. In the last case, the deputy editor-in-chief chooses another reader. Review (max. 1 page text) is prepared within four weeks, beginning the day reader accepted to write it. Reviewer is informed a submitted paper to be an intellectual property of its writer and must be kept under wraps. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the paper submitted for meeting own needs.

  4. 4. Review is prepared according to the model:
    1. Reviewer’s full name
    2. Title of paper
    3. Evaluation of correspondence to the remit of the journal
    4. Topicality of the research
    5. For a newly published article:
      1. evaluation of its originality and practical importance;
      2. evaluation of its methodological approach.
    6. Opinion:
      1. for how logically the topic and research are presented;
      2. and whether the text is comprehensible for the target audience in terms of language use, narrative style, and the layout of the text, ostensiveness of tables, schemes, drawings and formulae.
    7. Comments on paper weaknesses, if any, corrections and updates to be made by author; recommendations for the text improvement.
    8. Additional comments, things to note and suggest.
    9. Conclusion:
      1. paper is recommended to the publishing;
      2. paper needs improvement;
      3. paper is not recommended to the publishing.
    10. Reader’s signature.
    11. In case of a negative evaluation, the paper is sent for extra peer reviewing to another reviewer, chosen by an editor-in-chief. Reviews with both positive and negative evaluation are delivered to writers in order to inform them about necessary changings and corrections, if any, to be made in the paper, or about the denial of publishing for reasons explained.

  5. Procedure for correcting papers according to reader’s comments:

    If review contains comments on necessary corrections of paper peer reviewed, both texts, the paper and the review (staying anonymous for writer), are delivered to writer via e-mail or post. Paper sent to writer for correcting, must be corrected and sent back within two weeks. The corrected variant must be accompanied by writer’s letter, containing responses for all the critical comments made by reader, and explanations concerning all the changes occurred. In case of reviewer’s critical comments being not important for the story, the paper is sent to writer to be corrected in accordance with them all the same, though secondary peer reviewing is not carried out. If the comments are important, the paper is delivered for correcting, but secondary peer reading by the same reviewer takes place. The date, the corrected paper is sent back to the editorial board, is considered as the date the paper is received.

  6. Procedure for deciding on paper acceptance or denial to the publishing:

    The editorial board makes decision on whether paper is accepted or denied to the publishing on the grounds of peer reviewing results. The decision on paper acceptance to the publishing is made on the grounds of its positive evaluation by reader(-s). In case of negative evaluation, the paper is sent to another reviewer. If the second evaluation is also negative, the paper is denied. If the second evaluation is positive, the editorial board makes decision on accepting the paper to the publishing. The paper could be sent to the third reviewer, if the editorial board considers it reasonable. After the decision on acceptance/denial of paper to the publishing is made, the editor-in-chief informs writer and announces the target time of publication.

  7. Documents issues:

    In case of lack of critical comments from reader, the text of review is not delivered to writer. The original texts of reviews are kept in the editorial office during three years since article was published.

Final remarks
The editorial office does not return the authors of the submitted materials. The editorial office may refuse to publish a text without providing justification.

Modification of the Journal's website financed by the Ministry of Education and Science under the programme "Development of scientific journals"

Logotyp Ministerstwa Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego