1. All texts submitted to the editors of “Studia Norwidiana” are peer-reviewed.
2. The review process is divided into several stages.
3. The first stage is supervised by the editors of individual sections, i.e. the members of the Editorial Board responsible for a specific section of the journal, e.g. Articles, Interpretations or Materials. They prepare preliminary reviews of submitted articles and subsequently present them along with the articles at the preliminary meeting of the Editorial Board.
4. The second stage. Having been acquainted with the articles and the preliminary reviews prepared by the section editors, the Editorial Board transfers the texts to the thematic editors who are members of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Board specialising in the areas covered in the submitted text.
5. The third stage. The section editor together with the thematic editor appoint two external reviewers (not affiliated with KUL and institution, also foreign, in which the author of the article is employed) who will evaluate the text in an independent and confidential manner. In the case of texts written in a foreign language, one of the reviewers must be affiliated outside of Poland; the section editor together with the thematic editor may also appoint a special linguistic reviewer, in particular if the submitted text has been written in a language different than the author’s native language (e.g. the author is Polish but the text was written in French or vice versa: the author is French, but the submitted text is written in Polish).
6. The reviewers decide on the qualification of the text for print, taking into account such criteria as, among others, a new or innovative approach to the topic, the introduction of a new research topic, the application of appropriate methodology and the contribution to the current state of research.
7. Each review, including the reviews prepared by the section editor, the thematic reviewer, as well as external reviewers, is made in writing and should finish with an unambiguous conclusion: recommending the text for print or not recommending it for print.
8. The preliminary decision on the acceptance of the text for print is made by the thematic editor based on two written external reviews. He or she then presents his or her opinion along with the documentation to the section editor, who presents them at the meeting of the Editorial Board closing the particular volume.
9. The fourth stage. After a detailed analysis of the reviews and the final opinion of the thematic editor presented by the section editor, the Editorial Board makes a decision on the print of the text. The Editorial Board determines in which volume the text will be published: in the current or one of the subsequent volumes. The secretary of the Editorial Board informs the author of the text about this decision.
10. The fifth stage. The Editorial Board includes the text in a specific volume of the journal. Already after the whole volume is set, it is subject to a final review by two external reviewers, whose task is to evaluate the entire publication before publishing it in print. In case of any doubts at this stage, the article is subject to a discussion on the Editorial Board meeting. The author is informed about this, and after the author presented his explanations to those doubts or remarks, the review procedure is launched again.
11. Positive publishing reviews issued by two independent external reviewers, which concern the whole publication, i.e. the whole volume of the journal (with evaluation and feedback on all individual articles) closes the entire review process.
12. The names of publishing reviewers are published in every volume of the journal.
13. A list of external reviewers cooperating with “Studia Noriwidiana” is published on the journal website, the Editorial Board also presents a list of external reviewers working on a given volume of the journal.
14. In the case of external reviews, neither the reviewers nor the authors know their identity (in accordance with the double-blind review approach).
15. The reviews are classified: they are not disclosed by the editors to the authors or to the second reviewer.
16. “Guest authorship” and “ghostwriting” or other similar practices are recognised by the editors of the journal as a manifestation of scientific misconduct and a serious breach of research and author ethics. All cases of such practices are stigmatised by the editors, made public and reported to relevant entities, including: scientific societies, institutions employing authors, institutions financing science, etc.

Review Form