Przegląd Archiwalny Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej | Przegląd Archiwalny Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej

Peer Review Process

Materials submitted to the periodical should meet the criterion of thematic compliance with the scope of the periodical or calls for papers announced.
All submitted materials undergo a preliminary evaluation by members of the periodical’s editorial team in terms of thematic compliance with the profile of the periodical, substantive quality of the text, and consistency with the planned editions of the journal. 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 of the text being reviewed. The editors will inform the author of the forwarding of the text for review or its withdrawal from publication.
The editors will accept for further work only texts prepared in accordance with the published information for authors available on the website of the journal.
Articles approved by the editors are forwarded to two independent reviewers, specialists in the field of the text being reviewed, from outside the editorial team and academic board of the periodical, selected by the editors. One of the reviewers is usually an employee of the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), and the other is someone who is not employed at the Institute. In exceptional cases, the editors may appoint two reviewers from outside IPN or two reviewers employed at IPN.
The article may be sent for publication if it receives two positive reviews. In the case of two negative reviews, the article will not be considered for publication. If one of the reviews is negative, the decision on the further fate of the article is taken by the editor-in-chief after consultation with members of the editorial team.
The above procedure does not apply to: polemics, review articles, reviews and discussions of publications, texts from the Chronicle section, letters to the editorial team, editorial announcements, or transcripts of debates. These types of materials are evaluated by the editors. In justified cases, the editors may waive the above rule and appoint a reviewer or reviewers.
Reviewers will have at least a Ph.D. Exceptionally, in the case of documented competence in a given field, the editorial board may appoint a reviewer with a master’s degree or equivalent. 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 integrity and objectivity of the review, and that there is no conflict of interest between the reviewers and the author(s).
The reviews are prepared in accordance with the double-blind principle, i.e., authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity.
Reviewers agree not to make use of knowledge about the text under review before its publication.
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.
Reviews are done in writing using an editorial review form and conclude with a clear decision that the reviewed material is acceptable for publication, the conditions of acceptance for publication or, the rejection of the text.
The authors have the right not to take into account comments submitted by the reviewers. In such a case however, a written justification of such position is required.
In the event of an infringement of intellectual property or other principles of academic integrity (in the case of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, etc. – see the ethical policy of the periodical), the editorial team has the right to reject the text, regardless of the conclusions of the review.
The editors may choose not accept reviews or require corrections or supplements to such reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scholarly review, especially if they are perfunctory, contain unjustified critical opinions or praise, or are inconsistent in argument, i.e., where there is no logical connection between the content and the conclusion.
A text reviewed and accepted for publication will be submitted for editing and revision.
The list of reviewers will be published in the appropriate issue of the periodical and available on its website.

Peer Review Process

Recently published

Most read (last 6 months)