Publishing procedure

logo poziom czarny                                                                                                                                                 Études et Travaux


download pdf


Stage 1. Submitting a paper proposal

Papers sent to the journal’s editorial board are first evaluated in terms of whether they meet the initial formal requirements (i.e.: has the standard author’s declaration been filled out; have any legal issues linked to illustrations been settled; has the author agreed to sign an author copyright agreement establishing the conditions of reproducing, distributing etc. the paper by the journal’s publisher) as defined in the Author Guidelines published on the journal’s webpage, following which confirmation is required as to whether the text generally conforms to the detailed guidelines for manuscript preparation as presented in the above-mentioned Guidelines (delivery of: the manuscript in Word format, in English, French or German; a short abstract and keywords in English, the title of the paper in English if the text has been written in German or French, the authors’ affiliation(s) and e-mail address(es); the illustrations in separate graphic files and the illustration captions; a bibliography containing all the works quoted and prepared according to the reference citation method adopted in the journal).

If the paper fulfils the above-listed requirements, it will be considered as having been submitted, which may be confirmed upon the author’s request by an appropriate document issued by the editing board. If the paper does not fulfil the above-listed requirements, it cannot be subjected to further editing procedures and will not be considered as having been submitted.

Stage 2. Initial evaluation of the research content

The second stage of the editing procedure involves an initial evaluation of the article’s research content conducted by the editorial board (the editor-in-chief, the remaining scientific editors, the subject editor – if one has been assigned for the volume). The main goal of this assessment is identification of those papers that contain serious or fundamental mistakes and need to be refined by the author before being subjected to further stages of the editing procedure. The remaining papers that have received a positive opinion are automatically sent to initial technical edition and then move on to the overall evaluation of the research content stage.


Stage 3. Overall evaluation of the research content and general review procedures

This stage involves the overall evaluation of the paper’s research content. It should be assessed by:
a. the subject editor (if one has been appointed for the given volume);
b. reviewers (at least two); the decision about the choice of reviewers appropriate for assessing a given text is made by the editor-in-chief based on consultations with the volume’s remaining scientific editors and, in particular, on the subject editor’s opinion (if one has been appointed for the given volume);
c. the editor-in-chief and at least one of the volume’s scientific editors.

Reviews prepared by independent specialists in a particular field and who are not affiliated with the institute publishing the journal constitute a fundamental part of an article’s evaluation. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to the author, while the article’s author also remains anonymous to the reviewer (the so-called double blind peer-review system). The paper is reviewed based on a number of criteria (regarding the character and the general value of the text, the applied research method, the relationship between the discussed problem and the research material, the presented interpretation and the illustrations, the validity and exhaustiveness of the bibliography and footnotes, the correct usage of language and terminology), as defined in the Review questionnaire form available on the journal’s webpage. The review may suggest that the paper is suitable for publishing, requires some minor improvements, be completely rewritten, or that it should be rejected. If reviews of the same paper differ significantly in their evaluations of its value, the editorial board may appoint additional reviewers.

The papers are also assessed by the editorial board, while proposed corrections and changes as formulated by its members are marked on the text of the paper (its electronic version) as comments and as tracked changes. Any modifications resulting directly from the adaptation of the paper to the journal’s formal rules are exceptions to this rule; such changes are not marked as tracked changes.

Stage 4. Corrections introduced by the author, finalising the review procedures and making the decision to accept/reject the paper

At this stage, the author has a final opportunity to introduce significant modifications to the paper. If the reviews do not disqualify the paper completely, the author will be asked to introduce the necessary corrections suggested by the reviewers and the editorial board. In cases in which the author does not agree with the reviewers’ or editorial board’s substantial comments, the author is obliged to present an exhaustive written explication containing his/her argumentation. In justified cases, the editorial board reserves the right to provide access to this explication to the previous reviewers of the paper. In cases in which the reviewer/editorial board state that the explication presented by the author is insufficient, a decision concerning further conduct will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on consultations with the remaining members of the editorial board.

Papers that have been assessed by the reviewer as "can be resubmitted after complete rewriting" (point c. of the overall opinion on the paper) have to be resubmitted – after complete revision –for review, preferably to the same reviewer who evaluated the first version of the paper.

Papers that have received a negative review (point d. of the overall opinion on the paper) can only be re-submitted in exceptional cases: when there are serious doubts as to whether the reviewer's negative opinion is fully justified, or when the other review(s) suggest a completely different and generally high value of the same paper. In such a situation, authors must submit a detailed response to the negative review, together with a revised version of the paper. The final decision on the paper will be made by an editor-in-chief on the basis of the revised version of the paper, the response to the review, the reviewer's opinion formulated after receiving the response to the review and the revised version of the paper, as well as consultations with the members of the Editorial Board.

Authors of papers who have introduced the necessary modifications, as suggested by the editorial board and reviewers, will be requested to select a Creative Commons licence under which the paper will be published and to sign a standard licence agreement, determining the conditions under which the journal’s publisher may use the author’s work (i.e. the paper; the Forms of licence selection and of the agreement are available on the journal’s webpage). After the editorial board has received the signed licence agreement, the paper will be deemed as having been accepted for publication, which the editorial board can attest by issuing an appropriate document.

Stage 5. Language verification, desktop publishing, final proofreading by the author and the editorial board

Papers accepted for publication will be linguistically verified by a native speaker, and the accuracy of bibliographical references in the text (footnotes) and the reference list at the end of the paper will be checked. The editorial board will then submit the text for desktop publishing. Following this stage, the authors will receive their papers for final verification. At the author’s request, the editorial board may provide access to a version of the papers with all the modifications introduced during language verification marked. At this stage, it is only possible (both in the case of the author and the editorial board) for minor modifications that do not have a substantial impact on the text’s layout to be introduced. This is the final stage of the review procedures in which the author is a participant.

Stage 6. Revision of the modifications introduced during final proofreading and printing the volume

This stage involves the revision of the corrections introduced to the text following layout design and any other minor editing work. It ends with the entire volume being submitted for print. After it has been printed, all authors will receive a copy of the volume. Those papers published in paper format will also be made available in electronic form without any restrictions on the journal’s webpage (



Our website is protected by DMC Firewall!