1. Materials submitted to the periodical should meet the criterion of thematic compliance with the problematic scope of the periodical or announced calls for papers.
2. All submitted materials undergo a preliminary evaluation by members of the periodical’s editorial team in terms of thematic compliance with the problematic scope of the periodical, substantive quality of the text and consistency with the planned editions of the periodical. The editors reserve the right to return the text to the author for corrections or additions at this stage. Accepted articles are forwarded to reviewers in the field covered by the text reviewed. The editors inform the author about forwarding the text for review or withdrawing from publication.
3. The editors accept for further work only texts prepared in accordance with the published information for authors available at: https://czasopisma.ipn.gov.pl/index.php/arpl/about/submissions.
4. Articles approved by the editors are forwarded to two independent reviewers selected by the editors from outside the editorial team and the scientific council of the periodical, specialists in the field covered by the reviewed text. One of the reviewers is usually an employee of the Institute of National Remembrance, and the other is a person who is not employed at the Institute. In special cases, the editors may appoint two reviewers from outside the Institute of National Remembrance or two reviewers employed at the Institute of National Remembrance.
5. The article may be sent for publication if it receives two positive reviews and the editors decide to publish it. If one of the reviews is negative, the editors will request a third review. The editing of documents is reviewed by at least one reviewer selected by the editors of the periodical.
6. The above procedure does not apply to: essays, review articles, reviews and discussions of publications, letters to the editorial team, editorial announcements, polemics, conference reports, reprints from peer-reviewed publications that have already undergone the evaluation procedure, records of debates or editorial conversations [in accordance with the editorial policy]. This type of materials is assessed by the editors. In justified cases, the editors may depart from the above rule and appoint one reviewer.
7. Reviewers have at least a Ph.D. In cases of documented competence in a given field, exceptionally a review from a person with a master’s degree or equivalent may be accepted. The editors will make every effort to ensure that the reviewers do not have any relations with the author of the reviewed work that could affect the reliability and objectivity of the review, and that there is no conflict of interest between the reviewers and the author(s).
8. The reviews are prepared in accordance with the double-blind principle, i.e. authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity.
9. Reviewers undertake not to use knowledge about the assessed text before its publication.
10. Reviews are prepared on a confidential basis, i.e. the content of the review is communicated only to the authors of texts and members of the editorial team of the periodical.
11. Reviews are in written form (according to the form) and end with an unambiguous conclusion on the admission of the reviewed material to printing, the conditions for admission to printing, or the rejection of the text.
12. The authors have the right not to take into account the comments submitted by the reviewers. In such a case, however, a written justification of such a position is required.
13. After receiving the review, the editors decide whether to accept the text for publication or reject it. The editors reserve the right to request corrections or additions resulting from the reviewers’ comments or their own assessment. The final decision to publish depends on the author(s) taking into account the proposed corrections or additions. The editors reserve the right to decide on final publication or rejection of the text based on the review conclusions, the editorial team’s own assessment of the scientific value of the text and its consistency with the subject of the edition.
14. In the event of a violation of intellectual property or other principles of scientific integrity (in the case of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, etc. - see the ethical policy of the periodical), the editors have the right to reject the text regardless of the review’s conclusions.
15. The editors may not accept the reviews or require corrections or supplements to reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, especially if they are perfunctory, contain unjustified critical opinions or praise, or are inconsistent in argument, i.e. in which there is no logical connection between the content and the conclusion.
16. The reviewed and accepted text is edited and subedited, [and then translated and additionally checked].
17. The list of reviewers is published in the appropriate issue of the periodical and is available on the periodical’s website.

Review form