Reviewing procedure

1. The texts submitted to „Klio” are peer-reviewed using the Academic Journal Platform (Pl. Akademicka Platforma Czasopism, APCz). The instruction of use available here.
2. The sections subjected to peer-review comprise: Articles, Materials, Discussion, and Scientific Review. The texts published in the remaining sections are evaluated in terms of compliance with the overall profile of the journal, but are not sent to the external reviewers.
3. The Editorial Committee informs that in case the article is authored by more than one person, the default contribution is assumed equal and the authors are obliged to provide the details on any different shared contribution, if necessary.
4. The Editorial Committee reserves the right to screen the texts and reject the articles not in line with the journal’s profile. Further evaluation concerns the texts which:

•  comply with the formal requirements having followed the instruction and a complete reference list and footnotes, include a complete reference list and footnotes, prepared in compliance with the formal requirements,
• their goal and thesis are clear,
• were based on a solid source query and/or are a critical review of the state of the art in some field,
• are conductive to the development of the  .

5. Having been screened by the Editorial Committee, the articles are subject to double blind peer-review – anonymously sent to two external reviewers. When the reviews differ strongly, the third reviewer is involved and, sometimes, specialists in some particular fields are (anonymously) asked for their impartial opinion on some parts of the text (e.g. accuracy of some statistical data or cartographic sources, interpretation of the sources,, translation quality, etc.). The texts published in Materials, Discussion, and Scientific Review are only granted one external reviewer.
6. The eviews are based on a provided form. The reviewer is asked to sign a declaration concerning the work reviewed. The Committee reserves the right to accept or reject the text. The reviewer can take a number of stances towards the text reviewed:

• recommend for publication without revision,
• recommend for publication with minor revision,
• recommend for publication with major revision,
• recommend for publication in a different journal, more appropriate from the perspective of the topic covered,
• recommend rejecting the text due to its multiple defects.

 CAUTION!

If the two reviewers are of different opinions, we ask a third reviewer to evaluate the text. Regardless of the situation, the reviewer can make suggestions to the text, which are then anonymously sent to the author, to be introduced into the text. The reviewers do not receive the corrected texts, unless they specifically ask. The decision whether the text meets the requirements of the suggested review is taken by the Committee, although if the revision was a major one, another reviewers may be appointed, or the previous ones consulted again.

7. The choice of the reviewers for each text is based on their scientific expertise. Each of the reviewers is a researcher with a vast body of experience in historical research and in publication. Each of them bears a title of PhD or higher.
8. Our reviewers also focus on the structure of the text itself. We ask them to comprehensively assess the references, their completeness and quality, and validity of the research questions. They are also asked to pay special attention to the construction of the reasoning and conclusions. The language and the text’s validity in the overall scientific debate is taken into consideration as well. Finally, they also decide whether the text is in line with the journal’s profile and if it is print worthy.
9. Having received the reviews, the Committee takes a decision concerning publication of the text in a particular volume of “Klio”. It is based on a thorough analysis of the reviews and takes into consideration the journal’s publication plan. .
10. Each stage of the text’s evaluation is communicated to the corresponding author via e-mail.
11. Each reviewed text is subject to a double blind peer review meaning that the author and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The Committee’s secretaries are responsible for ensuring anonymity. The authors, however, are obliged to submit the text without personal data, while the reviewers to refrain from revealing information on the reviewed text throughout the whole time of the texts preparation for publication. The Committee might decide to reveal appropriate information is taken when cases of plagiarism are detected.