Editorial Policies

• » Publisher and Cooperating Publishing House
• » Legal Status of the Journal and Tradition of Publishing Journals by Scientific Societies
• » Aim of the Journal (a Development of Scientific Discourse) and Pro Publico Bono Activities
• » Focus and Scope
• » Section Policies
• » Crossref Services
• »» Anti Plagiarism Check
• »» Crossmark Policy Statement
• » Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics
• » Publication ethics and malpractice statement
• » Additional information about publication ethics
• » Peer Review Process
• » Review Guidlines
• » Confirmation of peer-review activity
• » Thanks to the Reviewers
• » Publication Frequency
• » Manuscript Procedure Time
• » Open Access Policy
• » Open Research Data Policy
• » Archiving Policy
• » No Publishing Fees
• » Journal Indexing and Availability
• » Author Declaration Form
• » Copyright License Agreement Form
• » Peer Review Form
• » Dissemination Guide of Scientific Publications
• » Citation Style Language - English version

Legal Status and Tradition of Publishing Journals by Scientific Societies

The journal is established within the framework of the activities of the PAU Commission on the History of Science.

The organizational basis of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum is determined by: 

• the Polish “Prawo prasowe” [Press Law Act] (Dziennik Ustaw 1984 nr 5 poz. 24 [Journal of Laws] 1984 No. 5 item 24]; it states, among others, that the editor-in-chief is responsible for all decisions: Article 7.2.7 "the editor-in-chief is a person authorized to decide on the entirety of the editorial office’s activities";  

• the long tradition of publishing journals by scientific communities, as exemplified by the journal Isis, founded by George Sarton in 1912, the oldest journal in the history of science, published since 1924 by History of Science Society, and the journals of the world-famous Polish School of Mathematics, such as Fundamenta Mathematicae (1920), Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématique; Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Matematycznego (1922), Studia Mathematica (1929), Acta Arithmetica (1935), and Bulletin du Séminaire Mathématique de l’Université de Wilno (1938); the editors of such journals had the right to publish the results of their research in the journals they co-created, as this was one of their basic editorial duties consisting in creating the scientific line of the journals (it is in a great contrast to the tradition of publishing journals by business publishers, according to which journal editors, employed by the journal publishers and duly paid by them, should not publish in the journal so as not to fall into a so-called conflict of interest and not to lose impartiality in the process of developing the journal in accordance with the publisher’s guidelines) – see Kokowski (2022, pp. 15–16; in Polish);

• the ethical codes of scientific or editorial activities developed, among others, by Science Ethics Commission, PAN (‘PAN’ = ‘Polish Academy of Sciences’), COPE and Elsevier.

Section Policies

ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

WORKSHOP OF THE HISTORIAN OF SCIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

TEACHING THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

TRANSLATIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FOCAL POINT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE IN POLAND

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE IN A EUROPEAN AND GLOBAL CONTEXT

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE BEYOND BORDERS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RESEARCH PAPERS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PRESENTATIONS AND REVIEWS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

BIBLIOMETRICS, SCIENCE POLICY, SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

VARIA

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC CHRONICLE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

CONFERENCE REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSIONS, POLEMICS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

NEWS, COMMENTS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

RAPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE PAU COMMISSION ON THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

IN MEMORIAM

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Crossref Services

The journal uses the following Crossref services:

• “References”, “Open references”, “ORCID IDs”, “Text mining URLs”, “License URLs”, “Similarity Check URLs” and “Abstracts” (please select journal's report in Crossref and in the row “Search for articles” write: Studia Historiae Scientiarum), and also "Cited-by" and “Reference Linking”;
• regarding “Open references” of the journal, see the journal’s account in Open Ukrainian Citation (the citation database, which comes from all publishers using the Cited-by Crossref service and supporting the Open Citation Initiative);
• “Similarity Check” and “Crossmark” (please see below).

Anti Plagiarism Check

From volume 18 (2019) to check the originality of articles submitted for publication in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum, this journal uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism service.

Crossmark Policy Statement

From volume 21 (2022) to provide readers with a standard way of locating authenticated versions of published articles in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum, this journal uses the Crossmark service.

By using the Crossmark logo,



Studia Historiae Scientiarum undertakes the obligation to maintain the content of published documents and inform readers about changes to this content, if and when they occur.

When clicking on the Crossmark logo the app will inform you about the current status of the document and its history.

Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics

With reference to the tradition of reliable, integrated research in the Science of Science (cf. Kokowski 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; Cook et al. 2009; San Francisco Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA) 2012; Hicks et al.2015; Werner 2015; Wilsdon et al. 2015; Universities UK 2017; Responsible Metrics 2017), the Editorial Team fully supports the current criticism of bibliometrics, mistakenly identified with scientometrics by science administrators around the world.

In particular, the Editorial Team fully shares the view of the 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine that:

“Great research may be published anywhere and in any language. Truly ground-breaking work may be more likely to appear from marginal, dissident or unexpected sources, rather than from a well-established and entrenched mainstream” (Cook et al. 2009, p. 2).

In addition, the Editorial Team advocates the use of the so-called “Responsible metrics” in the assessment of scientific activity and the quality of scientific journals (see Universities UK 2017; Responsible Metrics 2017).

Therefore, the pages of the journal are open to the reliable analyzes of the bibliometric methods in the light of the science of science and the science studies, particularly with regard to the history of science and the history of the exact sciences - cf. About the journal, The scope of the journal.

Bibliography

American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) (with a large group of editors and publishers of scientific journals) 2012: San Francisco DORA Declaration on Research Assessment. URL: https://sfdora.org; DORA Declaration (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Cook, Hal et al. [total of 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine] 2009: Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors. Medical History 53(1), pp. 1–4. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629173/pdf/medhis5301-00a-01.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; de Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael 2015: Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548), pp. 429–431 (23 April 2015). URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011: White Paper. The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism. URL: https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Kokowski, Michał 2015a: Szkic aktualnej debaty nad naukometrią i bibliometrią w Polsce i zapomniane naukoznawstwo [A sketch on the current debate on scientometrics and bibliometrics versus the forgotten science of science]. Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 117–134. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.007.5263.

Kokowski, Michał 2015b: Jakiej naukometrii i bibliometrii potrzebujemy w Polsce? [What kind of scientometrics and bibliometrics do we need in Poland?] Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 135–184. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.008.5264.

Kokowski, Michał 2015c: Bibliografia naukometryczno-bibliometryczno-informetryczna (wybór) [Scientometric, bibliometric and informetric bibliography (Selection)]. Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 185–266. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.009.5265.

Responsible Metrics 2017: Website promoting ideas of "Responsible Metrics". URL: https://responsiblemetrics.org (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Universities UK 2017: Metrics in REF2021: advice from the UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20190312170201/http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/Pages/forum-for-responsible-research-metrics.aspx (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Werner, Reinhard 2015: The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature 517 (7534), p. 245 (15 January 2015). URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/517245a.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Wilsdon, James et al. 2015: The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363 (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The journal aims to follow the rules of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding all duties and responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors and readers – see COPE Core practices.

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the editors

• Systematically raise journal standards
  
  Editorial Team is not only privileged but also obliged to systematically improve the standards of the journal, by interacting with members of the Scientific Council, authors, reviewers, readers, and specialized organizations or scientific publishing houses, including Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and also STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; European Association of Science Editors (EASE), Editage, Elsevier, Ithenticate. Professional Plagiarism Prevention, etc.;
  
  
• Strict confidentiality, objective impartiality, due thoroughness and kindness
  
  Editors are requested to treat submissions with strict confidentiality, objective impartiality and due thoroughness.
  
  In particular, without the written consent of the authors they must not use in their own research the information contained in the submitted (and not yet published) articles.
  
  Editors are also requested to formulate their critical remarks about the submitted articles in a kindly manner. It is worth pointing out both positive and negative aspects of the articles and trying to show how to eliminate their weak points (for further information on this subject, see Peer Review Process).
  
  All this is intended to help the authors improve the final text of the articles by refining its editorial and literary form, strengthening its source and factual foundations, as well as deepening the reasoning process, the presented interpretations and the formulated theses.
  
  
• Unacceptable conflict of interests
  
  Any unacceptable conflict of interests between editor, and author or reviewer is prohibited (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”).
  
  
• Final acceptance or rejection of submitted articles
  
  Editor-in-chief decides on the final acceptance or rejection of the submitted articles, taking into account the opinions of editors and reviewers (detailed description see Peer Review Process).
• Counteracting ghostwriting, guest authorship or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as irregularities regarding citations, e.g. plagiarism, self-plagiarism, the Matthew effect and the Matilda effect
  
  The Editorial Team will categorically oppose all indications of ghostwriting and guest or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as inappropriate practice of quoting sources in accordance with the Matthew effect or the Matilda effect, since they violate elementary ethical principles of the academic community (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”, and Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics).
  
  Should such misconduct be detected on the author’s part, the Editorial Team will request clarification regarding the misconduct and then undertake appropriate steps based on the COPE Flowcharts; this may ultimately include: notifying authorities in the author’s institution, withdrawing a given article, and preventing the author from publishing new articles in the journal.
  
  
• Editorial expressions of concern, corrections, retractions, and commenting
  
  Editorial Team:
  
  a) may publish an “Editorial expression of concern” regarding the published article;
  
  b) may publish corrections regarding the published article;
  
  c) may retract the published article if it violated ethical and publishing standards (cf. COPE Retraction Guideline);
  
  d) creates the opportunity for readers to comment on each published article.
  
  Note:
  
  Minor corrections, i.e. regarding errors that slightly affect the understanding of the original article, may be made in comments posted by the editors to the online version of the article.
  
  Major corrections, i.e. regarding errors that significantly affect the understanding of the original article, may be entered through a correction article, fully indexed and linked to the original document.
  
  

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the reviewers

• Privilege of criticizing manuscripts
  
  Reviewers have the privilege to criticize the submitted manuscripts. This role is both very important and responsible.
  
  
• Strict confidentiality, objective impartiality, due thoroughness and kindness
  
  Reviewers are required to treat submissions with strict confidentiality, objective impartiality and due thoroughness; in particular, reviewers must not use the information contained in the submitted (and not yet published) articles in their own research without the written consent of the authors.
  
  Reviewers are also requested to formulate their critical remarks about the submitted articles in a kindly manner. It is worth pointing out both positive and negative aspects of the articles and trying to show how to eliminate their weak points.
  
  All this is intended to help the authors and the editors improve the final text of the articles by refining its editorial and literary form, strengthening their source and factual foundations, as well as deepening the reasoning process, the presented interpretations and the formulated theses (for further information on this subject, see Peer Review Process).
  
  
• Unacceptable conflict of interests
  
  Any unacceptable conflict of interests between reviewer, editor and author is prohibited (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”).
  
  

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the authors

• Free of charge for publishing in the journal
  
  Due to the fact that Studia Historiae Scientiarum is a diamond open access journal, publishing in the journal is free of charge – authors do not pay for submission or article processing. The only exception to this rule is if the author, authorized to a one-time proofreading (after the review phase and after the final version of the text has been established) introduces to the work (in a PDF format) additional changes that exceed 5% of its volume. In such situations the Publisher can request to be reimbursed for the additional costs incurred.
  
  
• Authorship
  
  Authorship credit should be based solely on the actual contribution to the creation of the submitted manuscript, i.e. the participation in: 1a) study planning, 1b) data acquisition, and 1c) analysis or interpretation of data, 2a) drafting content of the manuscript, 2b) making important revisions, 3) final approval, and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work (cf. EASE Form for Authors’ Contributions and Conflict of Interest Disclosure).
  
  
• Co-authorship and declaration of co-authors
  
  In the case of group authorship, individual contributions of each author should be given in the manuscript (both descriptively and in percentage).
  
  Authors, for example, can formulate the following declaration about their particular contribution to the research:
  
  “Declaration about the particular contributions to the research: a) study planning: first author (100%); b) data acquisition and analysis or interpretation of data: second author (100%); c) writing the manuscript, making revisions and final approval: first author and second author (100%).”
  
  This information will be published in the article (see also Author Declaration Form).
  
  
• Changes of authorship or order of authors after submission of manuscript
  
  Any change of authorship of the manuscript or the order of authors requires: a) providing clear reasons for the change by the corresponding author, and b) the permission of all authors for the change sent individually by email to the Editor-In-Chief.
  
  If no consensus can be reached among the authors, they must resolve this problem with help of their parent institutions (the author-correspondent coordinates these contacts; the Editorial Team does not participate in this dispute).
  
  If the change of the authorship or the order of the authors concerns an already published article, the journal will publish information about the correction of the article or the revised article will be published.
  
  
• Contributions and acknowledgements
  
  The contributions of people who meet at most two of the above-mentioned criteria of authorship should be mentioned in the acknowledgments, but their names should be given only when they agree (cf. EASE Form for Authors’ Contributions and Conflict of Interest Disclosure).
  
  
• Sources of article’s financing
  
  Authors of articles should inform readers: a) who financed the research and b) whether the funders played any role in researching or publishing the article.
  
  
• Manuscript submitted and Author Declaration Form
  
  The author, by submitting the manuscript for publication in Studia Historiae Scientiarum, is also obliged to submit an additional statement regarding legal and ethical issues related to the manuscript (see Author Declaration Form).
  
  
• Reviews of submitted manuscript, and corrections of linguistic editors
  
  The author receives from the Editor-in-Chief (or his deputy or editors of the journal’s sections) peer reviews of the article made by open and secret reviewers, and editorial proofreading made by the Editorial Team.
  
  The author is obliged to reply to the peer reviews and editorial proofreading.
  
  Since the aim of the peer reviews and proofreading is constructive criticism of all aspects of the submitted manuscript, which is to help improve its editorial and literary form and strengthen the factual basis and deepen its theses or formulated arguments, the authors are requested to make the best use of the received peer reviews (see Peer Review Process) and editorial proofreading.
  
  

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the readers

• Open, free access
  
  Due to the fact that Studia Historiae Scientiarumis a diamond open access journal, readers have open, free access to all its publications.
  
  This also applies to all articles published since the journal’s foundation (1999), when it was called: Prace Komisji Historii Nauki. Polska Akademia Umiejętności or Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności (1999–2007) and Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU (2009–2015) – see Author Index or Thematic Index.

• Commenting articles by readers
  
  Readers may post comments to articles. However, the Editorial Team reserves the right to delete any comment whose content violates generally accepted ethical principles.
  
  
• Observance of copyright and citation of publications used in own research
  
  In the light of well-known bibliometric knowledge (including the so-called St. Matthew effect and the so-called Matilda effect), it is known that many publications that authors use in their own research are not cited in their publications.
  
  With this in mind, the readers are asked to use all articles published in Studia Historiae Scientiarum (called from 2009 to 2015, Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, and from 1999 to 2007 Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności / Proceedings of the Commission on the History of Science of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences) in accordance with the copyright and moral law:
  
  Should any article published in the journal draw the attention of the reader, they are requested to quote this publication in their own publications against sociological pathologies referred to as, among others, the so-called the effect of St. Matthew and the so-called Matilda effect.

Note:

See also below “Additional information about publication ethics” (with the explanation of several important terms), as well as Peer Review Process (including Review Guidelines) and Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics.

Additional information about publication ethics

The journal’s safeguarding measures against conflict of interest and potential bias when reviewing content submitted by the editorial staff:

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum is the journal of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, so it is a standard that some articles (approximately one third on average – see section 4. The journal’s openness policy ..., above) are published in this journal by the members of the Commission, including the chairman of the Commission, the editor-in-chief, his deputy or the members of Scientific Counsil, as together they create the scientific line of the journal.

In particular: 

• the chairman of the Commission should publish an annual report on the activities of the Commission,
• the editor-in-chief can publish an annual editorial describing the development of the journal or on other matters,
• the members of the Commission, including the editor-in-chief, the deputy editor-in-chief, or other authors can publish research articles or long-form reports of important events.

(All articles, even reviews, are peer reviewed; in the case of the articles by the chairman of the PAU Commission and the editor-in-chief, the deputy editor-in-chief takes control of the review process.)

It should be emphasized that it is in the best interest of the Chairman of the PAU Commission and the Editor-in-Chief to publish only valuable texts in this journal.

This applies in particular to texts written by the chairman of the PAU Commission and the journal’s editors, including the editor-in-chief or the members of Scientific Counsil of the journal. Because if these texts were of little value and/or violated ethical standards, this would result in:

• a sharp criticism from the members of the international Journal Scientific Counsil [currently, on 30 August 2024, 15 scholars – see URL: https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/ScientificCouncil] or the members of the PAU Commission on the History of Science (the journal is a journal of this Commission), consisting of many scholars [currently on 30 August 2024, 73 – see URL: https://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/en/structure/classes-and-commissions/inter-class-commissions/history-of-science];
• a loss of good name by the authors of criticized articles [it is a very important immaterial value in any self-respecting scientific community];
• a lack of interest in publishing articles in this journal by authors both associated with the PAU Commission on the History of Science and not.

If such negative phenomena occurred, the authors of the defective texts would lose their functions in the Commission and the journal.

Moreover, in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum there is an additional, universal and strong safeguard in the case of already published texts in this journal: the possibility of publishing critical reviews or polemics; this applies to all published texts in this journal, including those written by the chairman of the PAU Commission or the editors – see:

Section: Presentations and Reviews (URL: https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/EditorialPolicies#Section-Policies);

"Editorial Team: (...) d) creates the opportunity for readers to comment on each published article" (URL: https://ojs.ejournals.eu/SHS/EditorialPolicies#Publication-ethics-and-malpractice-statement).

Ghostwriting, guest authorship or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as irregularities regarding citations: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, the Matthew effect and the Matilda effect

Ghostwriting is understood as a situation when a person made a significant contribution to the publication but their role remains concealed, i.e. they are not named either among (a) the authors or (b) in the acknowledgments section of the said publication.

Guest authorship or honorary authorship is understood as a situation when a person is named as an author or a co-author of the publication, but their actual contribution to the publication was next to none or none at all.

Plagiarism is understood as copying someone else’s work or part of it with the attribution of the right to its authorship.

Self-plagiarism is understood as plagiarism of own publication, i.e. re-publication of a previously issued work or part of it without providing information about this fact.

Data falsification is understood as a situation when the author changes or omits research results to support claims, hypotheses, other data, etc.

Data fabrication is understood as a situation when the author constructs, fabricates or invents events, processes, observations or characterizations that did not take place in reality.

Concealing actual sources used to prepare the texts for publication is understood either as:

• all types of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism (see Zenderowski 2008; Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011; Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Banasiuk 2012);
• failing to quote the correct publications and quoting instead authors who are more likely to draw attention (according to the Matthew effect or the Matilda effect – see Merton 1968; 1988; 1995; Rossiter 1993; Strevens 2006; Kokowski 2015, pp. 160–161).

Conflict of interests

A conflict of interests is understood as a situation in which an author, reviewer or editor (or the institution with which such a person is affiliated) is involved in economic or personal relationships that may have an impact on their scientific judgment.

There are different forms and degrees of the conflict of interests. Some of them are admissible, and some are completely unacceptable because they negatively affect the objectivity of the scientific judgment.

Each case of a conflict of interests will be considered in the light of specialist studies describing good practices in reviewing procedures (see e.g. Elsevier 2024a).

Promotion and propagation of high ethical standards in science

In order to promote and propagate high ethical standards in science, the Editorial Team recommends becoming familiar with the following studies: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2016; 2017; 2019; 2022a; 2022b; European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018; 2022; Hames 2016; Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011; STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers 2013; Komisja do spraw etyki w nauce PAN 2020; Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011; Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Banasiuk 2012.

Bibliography

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2016: Podstawowe zalecenia. Tłum. Ewa Rozkosz i Sylwia Ufnalska. URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20Polish%20flowcharts.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2019: Retraction Guideline. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2022a: Core practices. URL: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2022b: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Fourth Version. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.12 (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Elsevier 2024a: Undisclosed conflicts of interest. URL: Undisclosed conflicts of interest (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Elsevier 2024b: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for Editors. URL: https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018: EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to be Published in English. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2018.44.e1.

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2022: EASE Toolkit for Journal Editors. URL: https://ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-journal-editors/ (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Hames, Irene 2016: Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Science Editing 2016/3(1), pp. 36–42. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61.

Ithenticate. Professional Plagiarism Prevention 2011: White Paper. The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism. URL: https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Kokowski, Michał 2015: Jakiej naukometrii i bibliometrii potrzebujemy w Polsce? [What kind of scientometrics and bibliometrics do we need in Poland?] Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 135–184. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.008.5264.

Science Ethics Commission, PAN 2020: Code of Ethics for Researchers. 3ed edition] Warsaw. URL: https://pan.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CodeofEthicsForResearchersThirdEdition.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Merton, Robert K. 1968: The Matthew Effect in Science, Science 159 (3810), pp. 56–63; Robert K. Merton 1910-2003, Garfield Library. URL: https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthew1.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Merton, Robert K. 1988: The Matthew Effect in Science, II. Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. ISIS 79, pp. 606–623; Robert K. Merton 1910–2003, Garfield Library. URL: https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthewii.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Merton, Robert K. 1995: The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect. Social Forces 74(2), pp. 379–424; Robert K. Merton 1910-2003, Garfield Library. URL: https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/thomastheorem.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Rzetelność w badaniach naukowych oraz poszanowanie własności intelektualnej. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. URL: https://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2022/11/rzetelnosc_broszura_fin_low.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Rossiter, Margaret 1993: The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science 23, pp. 325–341. DOI: 10.1177/030631293023002004.

Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Joanna; Banasiuk, Joanna 2012: Pojęcie i istota zjawiska autoplagiatu w twórczości naukowej. Państwo i Prawo 3/2012, pp. 6–19. URL: https://docplayer.pl/5283121-Pojecie-i-istota-zjawiska-autoplagiatu-w-tworczosci-naukowej.html#download_tab_content (accessed on 26 August 2024).

STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers 2013: International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication. URL: https://www.stm-assoc.org/2013_05_21_STM_Ethical_Principles_for_Scholarly_Publication.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Strevens, Michael 2006: The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), pp. 159–170; URL: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Matthew.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Ware, Mark; Mabe, Michael 2015: The STM Report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Fourth Edition. The Hage, The Netherlands: STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. URL: https://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Zenderowski, Radosław 2008: Plagiat. Istota – rodzaje – skutki (w odniesieniu do prac pisemnych na studiach wyższych) [Plagiarism: its nature, typology and consequences in written assignments at university studies]; Warsaw: Instytut Politologii Uniwersytet Kard. Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie. URL: https://docplayer.pl/2641827-Plagiat-istota-rodzaje-skutki.html#download_tab_content (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Peer Review Process

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum attaches great importance to fair procedures for peer review of texts submitted for publication in the journal as a means to foster its scientific and editorial development.

The journal puts into practice the ideas presented in specialist studies describing the good practices of the reviewing procedure – see Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017; 2022; Hames 2016.

Each text submitted to the journal undergoes the following review assessment procedure:

• In the peer review process, the principle of no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers is respected, i.e. the Reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review.
• The submitted text receives an ID number, which will be used in the subsequent stages of the review procedure to ensure the anonymity of the Author.
• To check the originality of the text, it is checked by the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism service.
• In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
• In the opposite case, the text is reviewed internally with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope).
• In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
• In the opposite case, the text is checked against the formatting guidelines of the journal (see bookmark: Guidelines for Authors, 6. Manuscript template and text formatting ― guidelines).
• In the case of texts that are: 1) editorial commentaries, 2) interviews or recollections, 3) discussions or publication reviews, 4) reprints, 5) polemics, 6) news and conference reports, and reports on the activity of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, immediately after editorial internal review, the texts are subject to languistic proofreadings (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
• In the case of texts that are: 1) the so-called research articles or 2) the so-called research notes (limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations), after the possible deficiencies of the texts indicated by the Editorial Team have been removed, the texts will be assessed additionally by 2 – 5 independent external Reviewers, whose respective identities will remain concealed (double-blind review). There can also be no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers, i.e. the reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review. The texts are subject subsequently to linguistic proofreading (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
• Based on the opinion of the Reviewers, the article might be accepted for publication without changes, conditionally accepted (necessary corrections, cuts or amendments by Author indicated) or rejected.
• After the imperfections, which have been indicated by the Reviewers and the Editorial Team, have been removed by the Author, the Editorial Team takes the final decision to accept the text for publication or reject it, and will inform the Author (or the Co-author who is the contact person) about their decision concerning the publication.
• After the possible changes, proofreading and initial DTP, the article will be presented to the Author for final proofreading and then be accepted for publication.
• The Editorial Team refuses to publish the article if: a) the essence of the text is not consistent with the profile and quality of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope); b) the Author has neither moral nor economic rights to the text; c) the text infringes on personal rights of other people (see bookmark: Legal and Ethical Issues); d) the Author does not agree to introduce the necessary corrections proposed by the Editorial Team.
• A list of Reviewers is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal.

BIBLIOGRPAHY

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2. URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2022: Core practices. URL: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Hames, Irene 2016: Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Science Editing 2016/3(1), pp. 36–42. URL: https://www.escienceediting.org/upload/se-3-1-36.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce [Review procedures in science: good practices]. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. URL: https://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2022/11/dobre_praktyki.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2024).

Note

The table above describes the reviewing model adopted so far in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum and based on the solutions promoted by COPE.

According to COPE, many review models are possible, created by selecting at least one option from each row of the table (see COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, p. 2).

In case of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum, the original COPE table was modified as follows:
a) the variants of solutions so far used by the journal have been marked (these are fragments of the text highlighted in blue),
b) the explanatory additions have been added (these are fragments of the text highlighted in yellow).

In the future, the peer-review model of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum may be subject to change, according to the readers’ needs and a necessity to maintain high review standards, as researchers are well aware of the many problems at the heart of the review procedure – cf. e.g. Csiszar 2016; Fronties. Science News 2016; Burley, Moylan (eds.) 2017; Scholastica 2019.

Bibliography

Burley, Rachel; Moylan, Elizabeth (eds.) 2017: SpotOn Report What might peer review look like in 2030? A report from BioMed Central and Digital Science. URL: https://events.biomedcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SpotOn_Report_PeerReview-1.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2. DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.9.

Csiszar, Alex 2016: Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature 532, 21 April 2016, pp. 306–308. URL: https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.19763!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/532306a.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Fronties. Science News 2016: A Succinct History of Academic Peer Review. Open Science and Peer Review. URL: https://frontiersinblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/peer_review_week_final_corrected.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Scholastica 2019: Why every OA journal should have peer review policies on its website and what to include? URL: https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/why-every-oa-journal-should-have-peer-review-policies-on-website/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Confirmation of peer-review activity

The researchers acting as reviewers for the Studia Historiae Scientiarum may receive a confirmation about their work for the journal by e-mail (with the possibility of using such a certificate, e.g. in Publons).

To receive a confirmation just send a short e-mail to:

shs [at] pau.krakow.pl

Moreover, the journal provides the list of reviewers on its website to guarantee the anonymity of the blind peer-review process ‒ see List of Reviewers.

This peer review activity is pro publico bono: it is voluntary and non-paid and supports the free exchange of knowledge in open access.

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum highly values cooperation with Reviewers ‒ see Thanks to the Reviewers.

Thanks to the Reviewers

The Editorial Team of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum would like to express its gratitude to all researchers who reviewed for free all manuscripts submitted to the journal, and, hence, helped in improving the quality of our journal – see “List of Reviewers”.

Publication Frequency

The journal is published annually (1 volume / year).

Manuscript Procedure Time

The average time during which the preliminary assessment of manuscripts is conducted: 10 days.

The average time during which the reviews of manuscripts are conducted: 90 days.

The average time in which the article is published: 252 days.

Open Access Policy

Though the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum is the journal of the PAU Commission on the History of Science [PAU = Polska Akademia Umiejętności = Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences], it is open to all authors who submit interesting articles in agreement with the line of the journal, irrespective if these authors are members of the Commission above mentioned.

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

The Editorial Team shares the opinion that open and free access to scientific publications is conducive to the dissemination of knowledge on a global scale.

For that reason, since 2013, our journal (then under the title: the Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science) has been a peer-reviewed journal with open access. It assumes the so-called diamond open access model, ie. an open and free access without embargo time.

Moreover, the journal supports the idea of unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data, in accordance with the rules promoted by the Initiative for Open Citations.

Bibliography

Fuchs, Christian; Sandoval, Marisol 2013: The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take noncommercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 11(2), pp. 428–443. URL: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3078/https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3078/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

The Editorial Team shares the opinion that open and free access to scientific publications is conducive to the dissemination of knowledge on a global scale.

For that reason, since 2013, our journal (then under the title: the Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science) has been a peer-reviewed journal with open access. It assumes the so-called diamond open access model, ie. an open and free access without embargo time.

Moreover, the journal supports the idea of unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data, in accordance with the rules promoted by the Initiative for Open Citations.

Bibliography

1. Fuchs, Christian; Sandoval, Marisol 2013: The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take noncommercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 11(2), pp. 428–443. URL: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3078/https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3078/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available free of charge to users or institutions. 

Since 2022 articles published in the journal are available under a licence Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Read more about the license CC BY 4.0: license overview, Legal Code.

The articles published in years 2016–2021 are available under a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Poland (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 PL).

For aricles till 2016 your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation – see: Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych.  

Copyright

Open Research Data Policy

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum encourages Authors to archive research data accompanying the creation of their articles (e.g. tables, graphs, photographs, films, sound recordings, data files, field notes, questionnaires, transcripts etc.) in open research data repositories, e.g. Zenodo (CERN), Repozytorium Otwartych Danych RepOD (CEON, Poland), Repozytorium Open Access Most Wiedzy (Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland).

A list of the open research data repositories can be found in: Directory of Open Access Repositories; Registry of Research Data Repositories; Data Cite and Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe (OpenAIRE).

Authors can cite the research data in their articles. It is necessary to provide a statement regarding the availability of these data sets, including a link to the repository where they were deposited, DOI etc.

For more on this topic, see Pampel et al. 2013; Guy 2013; Stromberg 2013; Griffin 2015; Bednarek-Michalska 2015 (in Polish); 2016 (in Polish); Hoffman-Sommer 2016a (in Polish); 2016b (in Polish); European Commission 2017; Kamińska 2017 (in Polish); Psonka 2017 (in Polish); Barrowman 2018; Open Aire 2018; Hrynaszkiewicz, Simons, Hussain, Goudie 2019.



Bibliography

Barrowman, Nick 2018: Why Data Is Never Raw. On the seductive myth of information free of human judgment. The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Society Summer/Fall 2018. URL: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20181001_TNA56Barrowman.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Bednarek-Michalska, Bożena 2015: Repozytoria danych badawczych dla humanistyki. URL: https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/4939/surowe_dane_humanisci_UW.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Bednarek-Michalska, Bożena 2016: Open Access w Horyzoncie 2020. URL: https://uwolnijnauke.pl/open-access-w-horyzoncie-2020/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

European Commission 2017: Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 ver.3.2. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Griffin, R.Elizabeth 2015: When are Old Data New Data? GeoResJ 6, June 2015, pp. 92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2015.02.004.

Guy, Marieke 2013: The Rise of the Data Journal. Presentation given at IASSIST, Cologne, Germany, Friday 31st May 2013. URL: https://www.slideshare.net/MariekeGuy/the-rise-of-the-data-journal.

Hoffman-Sommer, Marta 2016a: Otwieranie małych danych badawczych. Forum Akademickie 07-08/2016. URL: https://prenumeruj.forumakademickie.pl/fa/2016/07-08/otwieranie-malych-danych-badawczych/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Hoffman-Sommer, Marta 2016b: Otwieranie małych danych badawczych. Platforma Otwartej Nauki. Interdyscyplinarne Centum Modelowania Matematyczego i Komputerowego. Uniwersytet Warszawski. URL: : https://docplayer.pl/59391486-Platforma-otwartej-nauki-icm-uniwersytet-warszawski-marta-hoffman-sommer-otwieranie-malych-danych-badawczych.html (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Simons, Natasha; Hussain, Azhar; Goudie, Simon 2019: Developing a research data policy framework for all journals and publishers. Figshare. Preprint. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.8223365.v1.

Kamińska, Anna Małgorzata 2017: Dobre praktyki publikowania danych badawczych. Biuletyn EBIB 7 (177). URL: http://open.ebib.pl/ojs/index.php/ebib/article/download/569/752 (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Open Aire 2018: Open Research Data the New Norm in H2020. URL: https://www.openaire.eu/open-research-data-the-new-norm-in-h2020 (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Pampel, Heinz; Vierkant, Paul; Scholze, Frank; Bertelmann, Roland; Kindling, Maxi; Klump, Jens; Goebelbecker, Hans-Jürgen; Gundlach, Jens; Schirmbacher, Peter; Dierolf, Uwe 2013: Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry. PLoS ONE 8(11) e78080. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078080.

Psonka, Tomasz (Elsevier) 2017: Zarządzanie danymi badawczymi. IV Ogólnopolskie Seminarium użytkowników Uczelnianych Baz Wiedzy – Politechnika Warszawska (05 czerwca 2017). URL: https://docplayer.pl/132907867-Zarzadzanie-danymi-badawczymi.html (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Stromberg, Joseph 2013: The Vast Majority of Raw Data From Old Scientific Studies May Now Be Missing. URL: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-vast-majority-of-raw-data-from-old-scientific-studies-may-now-be-missing-180948067/ (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Archiving Policy

The archiving policy of the journal is defined by the so-called green RoMEO colour (SHERPA), i.e. the author can archive:

• pre-print (version of the paper before the peer review);
• post-print (final draft post-refereeing);
• final version of the paper (PDF) published by the journal (see also bookmark: Copyright and fair use).

General Conditions:

• Authors retain copyright.
• From volume 21(2022), Authors grant non-exclusive license under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (previously it was also the Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - No Derivatives License 4.0 International).
• Authors’ pre-print on any website.
• Authors’ post-print and Publisher's version/PDF on authors’ personal website, departmental website, institutional repository, social media websites, open access repositories.
• Published source must be acknowledged (with the link to the publisher’s PDF version and DOI number if exists).

Note:

This is an exception to the standard archiving policy of the Publisher – see:

Publisher "Polska Akademia Umiejętności" - RoMEO Publisher ID: 2727. URL: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publisher/2727 (accessed on 8 September 2022).

Journal "Studia Historiae Scientiarum" entry in RoMEO, URL: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/32844 (accessed on 8 September 2022).

All texts from the journal are published in electronic version. We strive to index full-text files in various databases.

The journal is digitally archived in the Polona (digital library of the National Library of Poland), and Academica (online interlibrary system).

No Publishing Fees

Publishing in the journal is free of charge (no submission or article processing charges).

The journal is published in full open, free, access mode, without time embargo (it is the so-called diamond open access). So, not only authors but also readers do not pay any fees.

Journal Indexing and Availability

The journal is currently registered, among others, in the following indexing databases and directories (this list is being gradually expanded):

• The Keepers (PKP Preservation Network);
• Web of Science Core Collection: Emerging Sources Citation Index;
• Scopus;
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ);
• Open Ukrainian Citation (the citation database, which comes from all publishers using the Cited-by Crossref service and supporting the Open Citation Initiative);
• ResearchGate;
• MIAR;
• CEEOL (Central and Eastern European Online Library);
• ERIHPLUS European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciencess;
• Google Scholar;
• Index Copernicus Journal Master List;
• Responsible Journals;
• BASE Bielefeld Academic Search Engine;
• EZB – Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek;
• ROAD: the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources;
• WorldCat;
• Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory;
• EBSCO - Historical Abstracts; EBSCO Discovery Service; Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS);
• BazHum;
• Polska Bibliografia Naukowa;
• The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CEJSH);
• ARIANTA Polish Scientific and Professional Electronic Journals;
• INFONA – Portal Komunikacji Naukowej;
• Jagiellońska Biblioteka Cyfrowa;
• Biblioteka Nauki;
• MostWiedzy;
• Polona;
• Academica.

The journal is cataloged and available electronically at university libraries around the world – see for example:

• Harvard University, Stanford University, Princeton University, Columbia University and Chicago University (USA);
• Oxford University, University College London, and Manchester University (Great Britain);
• Université de Strasbourg and Université Paris Sud (Paris 11) (France);
• Universiteit Leiden and Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (The Netherlands);
• Universität Regensburg and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Germany);
• Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Uniwersytet Warszawski, and Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Poland).

The journal is is also available electronically by:

• DeepDyve;
• Isis CB Explore;
• Semantic Scholar.

Author Declaration Form

– Download and complete [.pdf], [.docx].

Copyright License Agreement Form

– CC BY: Download and complete [.pdf];

Peer Review Form

– Download and complete [.pdf], [.docx].

Dissemination Guide of Scientific Publications

– Download and analyze [.pdf].

Citation Style Language - English version

– Download and use [.csl].