The review process
We would like to inform you that following the current guidelines of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education each scientific article is anonymously reviewed by two independent reviewers before it can be published in ‘Kultura współczesna’ [Contemporary Culture]. Reviews, discussions and reports are not subjected to the double-blind review process. The affiliation of reviewers working on texts for a given issue concept differs from that of editors working on the final issue. Reviewers of the texts other than those corresponding to the concept cannot be associated with the same academic centre as the author.
Before the texts are sent for reviewing, they are evaluated by our editorial team. The following criteria are taken into account: compliance with the subject of the journal, maturity of the research apparatus, the factual knowledge and content. Authors are informed about the result of the evaluation process at every stage – as soon as the article is reviewed, the author receives information about the decision and proposed corrections (if necessary). When the text is accepted by our editorial team (and all corrections are made), it undergoes the anti-plagiarism procedure (to this end, we cooperate with plagiat.pl).
In the review sheet reviewers fill in the check boxes so as to clearly assess whether the text is suitable for printing in its current form, requires minor changes or cannot be published in a scientific journal in its current form. The sheet also allows reviewers to evaluate the text in terms of innovative thought, research background and instruments, and other relevant issues which to a greater or lesser extent contribute to the final assessment. In addition to the closed-ended questions the sheet also contains a written part where reviewers can describe the strengths and weaknesses of the text, make suggestions, and add detailed comments and/or specifications regarding the check-boxes part.
The evaluation of two reviewers decides whether the text can be accepted for publishing. However, if the reviews contradict each other (one is clearly negative and the other is clearly positive), the article is consulted by a third reviewer who, similarly to the two previous ones, does not know the identity of the author of the text. The third reviewer does not have access to the content of the previous reviews and is only informed about the difference of opinion. In such cases the third review decides whether the article can be approved for printing and as such is considered to be conclusive and final.
The list of reviewers is published in the first issue of the next year.