PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Fair, unbiased, competent, rigorous, and constructive peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of publications on our pages. Peer review is an activity carried out by scholars as a means of contributing to the academic fields we cover. Biuletyn Historii Sztuki uses double-blind peer review (the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors at the time of the review) and requires a minimum of two independent peer reviewers with at least a doctoral degree and representing different academic institutions, to review the manuscript of the research/review article for consideration in the journal. Texts such as editorials, commemorations, news releases, reviews of books and exhibitions, polemics, the annual chronicle of the Association of Art Historians that are only internally assessed, are marked as non-refereed in the online edition.

Rules of the Double-Blind Peer Review Process

1. We invite reviewers on the basis of their competence and professional expertise. The reviewers are asked to provide a fair, honest, and respectful assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, containing possible suggestions for further work which the editors will forward to the author ensuring that anonymity is maintained.
2. We make every effort to avoid selecting reviewers who may have competing interests that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased opinion. In case of identifying a competing interest, the reviewer is required to notify the editors immediately and refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material until they agree with editors on how to proceed in this particular case. The reviewers are not members of the editorial team of Biuletyn Historii Sztuki or its Academic Advisory Board.
3. We respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. The manuscripts are fully anonymized before reviewing; at all stages of the review process the author and reviewers remain anonymous, their identity is strictly confidential to members of the editorial team. Reviewers may not use the manuscript they evaluate in any unauthorized way. Reviewers do not recommend to authors, without specific justification, that their work be cited.
4. We provide reviewers with substantive and ethical reviewing principles (based on COPE recommendations), which they accept by agreeing to perform the review. These opinions are inserted into a form provided by the editors. Reviewers should immediately report misconduct and any suspected breach of publication ethics by an author or an editor to the editorial team. At the  same time the editorial team remains cautious of possible attempts at fraud or manipulation in peer reviews or peer reviewers’ unauthorized use of manuscripts for their own purposes; any suspected case will be investigated and acted on according to the COPE guidelines.
5. We publish the names of peer reviewers who have collaborated with the journal during the year at the end of each year on the journal’s website. This list is published in print in the first issue of the following year.
6. The editors of Biuletyn Historii Sztuki who submit their texts to the journal are completely excluded from all stages of the review process.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Internal reviewing and preliminary selection of submitted manuscripts by the editorial team, within 5 weeks after submission (manuscripts may be desk rejected or qualified for peer review).
2. Inviting qualified peer reviewers in line with editorial policy and ethics of Biuletyn Historii Sztuki. Reviewers must have at least a doctoral degree.
3. Double-blind peer reviewing process (5 weeks or longer, if required). The reviewers assess the manuscripts (before they are edited) in writing, using a review form available on the journal’s OJS platform. They evaluate, in particular, the originality of approach in the light of recent research, the relevance of methodology and its application, the soundness of argumentation and clarity of exposition as well as the linguistic quality of the text. A review must include an overall recommendation to: accept the manuscript for publication, accept with minor or major revisions, or reject it. Optionally, in justified cases and at the explicit suggestion of the reviewers, it is possible to resubmit the article for review after the author’s review and corrections, i.e. a so-called second round of review. If reviewers have any objections to articles submitted for review, the editors mediate between them and the authors, respecting the principle of confidentiality, and give the authors the opportunity to respond to the reviewers’ comments.
4. If the recommendations of the reviewers diverge, the editors may appoint a third reviewer or consult a member the Academic Advisory Board.
5. Final decision (publication, revisions, or rejection) made jointly by the editorial board on the basis of:

• the quality of the manuscript and the research it presents;
• importance of the work for the research community and the readers of Biuletyn Historii Sztuki;
• the peer reviewers’ comments;
• legal requirements that are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and cases of plagiarism (or self-plagiarism).

6. The editors provide authors with comments and suggestions from reviewers, taking care to maintain the principle of anonymity. The editors also provide authors with their own comments. Revised versions of the authors' texts are placed in the OJS.
7. If a manuscript is rejected following a negative assessment by the editorial board or reviewers, the editors will notify the authors. The decision of the editorial board is final in this regard. Once a submitted text has been rejected, the editors do not accept it for further consideration.