The reviewing procedures used by the Editorial Board of "Zagłada Żydow. Studia i Materiały / Holocaust Studies and Materials" take into account the reviewing guidelines prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, and above all the Committee on Publication Ethics, in particular:

1. All texts submitted for publication are subject to review - initial assessment by the Editorial Board. The thematic scope of the submitted article is verified (in terms of its compliance with the subject of the journal) and compliance with the formal criteria for a scientific text and the author's compliance with the publishing instructions. Based on the initial review by at least two members of the editorial board, they are qualified for further review procedure or rejected. Each time the author is informed about the editorial decision.
   
   
2. Evaluation time for submitted manuscripts:
   a. initial assessment - 30 days
   b. external review - 60 days
   c. average time of publication of an article (from the earliest submission to the publication of the issue) - 290 days
   
   
3. The editors apply the double blind review principle, according to which both the reviewer and the author do not know each other's identities.
     
4. Texts that will be initially accepted are submitted to independent reviewers (in the case of texts 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), who:
• are not members of the Editorial Board,
• are not affiliated with the same institution from which the authors come,
• are not in a conflict of interest with the author,
• they are not related to the authors from an official dependency,
• they are not in direct and close personal relations with the authors (if the group of specialists in a given field is very narrow, there may be a deviation from the rules expressed in the above points),
• are competent in a given field and have appropriate scientific achievements,
• enjoy the unblemished opinion of the reviewer
  
  
5. The editors provide the potential reviewer with a description of the publication (title, number of characters or standardized pages [1800 characters]) and a summary of the text, leaving him full freedom to decide whether to accept or reject the text for review, but proposing a deadline for making a decision.
   
   
6. Reviewers are obliged during the reviewing process to confidentiality in their opinions on the reviewed text and are not allowed to use knowledge about it before its publication.
   
   
7. When commissioning a review, the editorial office provides the reviewer with guidelines on the form of the review, which the reviewer should use to prepare the review. The review must end with an unequivocal conclusion regarding the admission of the article for publication without comments, conditional admission of the text after taking into account the comments or its rejection.
   
   
8. The reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the Editor's e-mail address or using the OJS system form. In justified cases, the review may be sent in a different (written) form.
   
   
9. The editors do not accept reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, including casual reviews, dominated by unjustified critical opinions or unjustified praise, devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. reviews that are definitely critical, but with a positive conclusion or vice versa.
   
   
10. The reviewer's comments are forwarded to the author of the reviewed text*. The rational and reasoned conclusions presented in the review are binding on him. He is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the text in an appropriate way. Reviewers have the right to re-verify the corrected text.
    
    
11. If the author of the text does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, he has the right to comment on them to the Editorial Office*.
    
    
12. The decision regarding publication of the article is made by the Editor-in-Chief together with members of the Editorial Board, based on the analysis of the comments and conclusions contained in the review, along with any responses to them by the author of the text, and the final version of the text provided by the author.
    
    
13. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes on its website an updated full list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.
    
    
14. Articles rejected by reviewers are archived in the editorial office of the journal for a period of five years.

 

sample review form       [PDF ]          [docx ]