Selection Procedure

The Editorial Team accepts only original articles that have never been published. Any submitted (to "Filologia Polska") material should not be sent to another journal at the same time until the selective procedure is completed.

  1. Pre-selection
    The Editorial Team accepts only original articles which have never been published. Any submitted (to "Filologia Polska") material should not be sent to another journal at the same time, up to the selective procedure is completed.
    1. SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL
      The tasks of the Scientific Council are: patronizing the initiative (i.), shaping the directions of its development (ii.), defining the research program of the yearly (iii.), preliminary evaluation of the submitted materials (iv.) — essential in the light of the decision to print or abandon it in the case of individual materials. Members of the Scientific Council express their opinion only in relation to works according to the area of their scientific competence.
    2. SCIENTIFIC EDITOR OF THE (NEXT) YEARBOOK
      It is composed of: two editors appointed for each issue (i.a.), the team is each time supplemented by the editor-in-chief of the periodical (i.b.) (i.). A positive decision of the Scientific Council (see A.I.iv.) will qualify the submitted materials for their preselection (ii.). The articles should meet the criteria (iii.): originality (iii.a.), inventiveness (iii.b.), and have a research character (iii.c.). They must also meet the outlined themes that have been assigned to subsequent volumes (iii.d.). Members of the Scientific Editorial Board, taking into account the above-defined requirements (A.II.iii.a.-iii.d.), agree on the wording of the book (iv.) in order to submit it for review (v.).
  2. Review procedures
    1. Title/content relationship.
    2. Source documentation.
    3. Communicativeness.
    4. The scale of the exemplification of the theses.
    5. The level of research discourse.
    6. Research context and understanding of the so-called state of up to date research results.
    7. Innovation of the presented conclusions.
    8. The methodology of proving.
    9. Adequacy of the summary to the presented article.
    10. Other qualities.
    1. REVIEWERS AND THEIR WORKS
      The tasks of the reviewers include the substantive evaluation of the submitted studies (i.) — ultimately binding for scientific editors in the matter of printing. Conditional publication (after removing any defects by the authors) is allowed by the opinion of scientific editors (ii.) — following the determination of necessary modyfications, additions, etc. (iii.). Reviewers express the results of their analysis in the form of a synthetic description, with justification of the advantages and shortcomings of the submitted works (iv). Each submitted article is reviewed by two reviewers chosen by the Editorial Board according to their research specialties (v.). If necessary, the Editorial Board appoints an additional reviewer whose opinion is conclusive (vi).
    2. REVIEW CRITERIA (score on a scale from zero to ten for individual areas subject to assessment).
    3. GHOSTWRITING BARRIER
      Reliability in science is one of its qualitative foundations. Readers should be sure that the authors of the publication present the results of their work in a transparent, reliable, and honest manner, regardless of whether they are its direct authors or have used the help of a specialized entity (natural or legal person). The evidence of the ethical attitude of a researcher and the highest editorial standards should be the openness of information about entities contributing to the publication (substantive, material, financial contribution, etc.), which is a manifestation of not only good manners but also social responsibility. Opposing examples are "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship". We deal with "ghostwriting" when someone has made a significant contribution to the creation of a publication without disclosing his participation as one of the authors or without mentioning his role in the acknowledgments contained in the publication. We deal with "guest authorship" ("honorary authorship") when the author's participation is negligible or did not take place at all, and yet he is the author/co-author of the publication. In order to counteract cases of "ghostwriting", "guest authorship", the editorial office of the journal introduces appropriate procedures specific to the represented field or discipline of science or implements the following solutions:
      1. The Editorial board demands the disclosure of the contributions of all authors (and providing information on their affiliation and the level of contributions; the authorship of: the concept, tenets of the research, methods, protocols, etc. that have been used for the preparation of the publication) — the primary responsibility is taken by the author who has submitted the paper.
      2. The Editorial board explains that ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific dishonesty. All its cases will be exposed and, consequently, adequate parties will be informed (editors' associations, scientific associations, etc.).
      3. The Editorial board should obtain information on the source of the financing of the publication, the contribution of the academic institutions, associations, and other parties, that is, the "financial disclosure".
      4. The Editorial board documents all evidence of academic misconduct, especially that of direspecting and breaking the principles of ethics in science.
      Editors respect the standards and guidelines (Core practices) developed by the Commitee on Publication Ethics.
    4. DOUBLE-BLIND REVIEW PROCESS
      An important rule in the review process — double-blind review process, i.e., the author or authors of the publication and reviewers do not know their identities; in other cases, the reviewer signs a declaration that there is no conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest is considered to be the direct personal relationships between the reviewer and the author (in particular, second degree relationships, marriage), professional subordination relationships, or direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year of review preparation (Annex to the Communication of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of September 14, 2012 entitled Criteria and procedure for the evaluation of scientific journals).
    5. PUBLISHING ETHICS
      See also Publishing Ethics.