Review of manuscripts

The „Studies into the History of the Book and Book Collections”uses double-blind reviewing. The subject editors responsible for original research papers and source materials peruse the manuscripts. The texts within the scope of the journal are then sent to two reviewers, who offer their opinion on an unified form.

Main areas of the review are:

  • compatibility to the journal’s scope
  • meritorious value of a text
  • its logical arrangement and clear communication.

After receiving the reviews, the Editorial Board makes a final decision on accepting the manuscript, accepting it after revisions, or rejecting it. The whole process takes 6 to 10 weeks.

1. Internal (editorial) evaluation.
 
The first stage of evaluation takes place in the Editorial Office of the journal. This is a preliminary evaluation consisting of checking:
  • compliance of the text with the journal's profile,
  • fulfillment of formal requirements, i.e., compliance of the text with the guidelines provided in the instructions for Authors published on the journal's website,
  • Articles that are unscientific or do not conform to the journal's profile are already rejected at this stage.
Articles that do not meet the formal requirements are sent back to the authors for corrections.
The editors also pay attention to the appropriateness of the title and content of the article. Therefore, already at this stage, the Editors may also ask the Author to make changes to the text.
 
2. External evaluation by independent reviewers.
In the next phase, the article is sent for review to two independent external reviewers who:
  • are specialists in the field and are selected on the basis of the compatibility of their research profile with the subject matter of the submitted article,
  • are not affiliated with the same unit as the Author of the article,
  • in the case of texts in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the Author,
  • if the most competent specialist in a given field works at the same unit as the Author of the article, then such a person may be appointed as a reviewer of the article if he signs an undertaking that there is no conflict of interest between him and the Author of the article. Conflict of interest is considered to be direct personal relations (kinship, legal ties, conflict) between the reviewer and the author, relations of professional subordination, as well as direct scientific cooperation during the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
  • Reviewer’s statement
 
The names of reviewers are disclosed on the journal's website at the end of each calendar year for the last two years.
 
Each article is reviewed confidentially and anonymously (the so-called "double-blind review process"-"double blind review").
 
The review must be in writing and end with a clear conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.
 
The review form is published on the  „Studies into the History of the Book and Book Collections” website, under the Review Procedure tab: LINK
 
An article reviewed favorably by both reviewers is qualified for publication.
 
An article reviewed negatively by both reviewers is rejected.
 
If, on the other hand, one review is negative and the other is positive, the article is again sent for review (third external review). When the next review is negative, then the article is rejected. If it is positive - the article goes to a further stage in the process of accepting it for publication.
 
When the article is accepted conditionally by one or both reviewers (positive review subject to necessary changes) it is referred to the Author for corrections.
 
3. Familiarization of the Authors with the comments of the reviewers and making the corrections recommended by them.
 
After the review procedure is completed, the Author is notified of the reviewers' assessment. Review forms are sent to him, from which the reviewers' data were previously removed.
 
The author has the right to respond to the reviewer's comments if he considers them unfounded or unfair. If the Author's arguments are convincing, then the Editor will send them to the Reviewer. The Author's comments, like those of the Reviewer, can only be sent through the Editor, who guarantees their anonymity.
 
After the corrections are made, the article may be resubmitted to the Reviewers, if they wished to see the corrected text and revise it again, or if the Editorial Board considers that further consultation is necessary. After the Reviewers' re-approval, the article in its final version is qualified for publication.
 
If the Author rejects review comments that the Editorial Board deems valid, the article will be rejected.
 
An article may be rejected at any stage of the above procedure - both at the stage of preliminary evaluation, when it does not meet the substantive and formal requirements, as a result of receiving negative reviews, and also when a positive review is issued conditionally, and the Author does not agree to make the corrections suggested by the Reviewer, of which the Editor is fully convinced.
 
The final decision to submit an article for publication is made by the Editor, who notifies the Author of the publication deadline.
 

Review rules

Reviewing Process:
  • Reviewers participate in the works of the Editorial Team and have an influence on the decisions made by the Editorial Team. They can also, upon the consensus with the Authors, influence the final shape and polishing of the published works.
  • The review is conducted in double-blind mode, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities.
  • The surnames of the Reviewers of the respective issues are not published in a given number of the journal. Once a year the journal publishes the list of collaborating Reviewers.
  • All scientific texts are reviewed (it does not apply to non-scientific reviews, reports, announcements, popular science articles, editorials).
  • The Review takes place before the text publication after the text has been sent by the Author for the Editorial Team's evaluation.
  • The Editorial Team ivites at least two independent Reviewers for evaluation of each publication from outside the scientific unit affiliated with the publication’s Author (external reviews). Texts in foreign languages are evaluated by at least one affiliated Reviewer from a foreign institution other than the Author of the work under review.
  • The Editorial Team is responsible for the selection of the Reviewers, having in mind in particular research interests, scientific achievements and competencies of the Reviewer in the field of knowledge to which the text in question pertains.
  • The Reviewer may refuse to conduct a review due to formal (e.g., conflict of interests, lack of possibility to meet the deadlines for carrying out a review) or informal reasons (scientific interests are not in line with the text’s subject matter). In such a case, the Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Team of this fact immediately.
  • It is unacceptable to invite the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member as a Reviewer.
  • The Editorial Team does not use reviews from other journals, commercial reviewing platforms, Internet forums etc.
  • If the Editorial Team Member or the Scientific Council Member is the Author of a text, the selection of the Reviewer is the responsibility of another member of the Editorial Team other than the Author. The rules and obligations of the Author apply to such a person, whereas, the privileges for the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member connected to participation in editorial work, reviewing process and making decisions about this text are not granted to such a person.
  • The Review must be in the written form. The Reviewer may send a review form or complete the review using a suitable online form. The Review must contain an explicit evaluation regarding accepting the text for publication or its dismissal.
  • Only texts which have undergone the review process and received two positive reviews can be accepted for publication by the Editorial Team.
  • Texts which received one negative review in relation to which the Reviewer sees a possibility for accepting the text for publication after the text is corrected may be sent to the Author along with recommendations. The Author enters the adequate corrections, and then the text is sent for another review (the second round of review). Texts which have obtained one negative review may be dismissed by the Editorial Team without conducting the second round of review.
  • Criteria taken into account during the review process are indicated in the reviewing form.
  • The Editorial Team sends the Reviewer the reviewing form, which is the basic document in which the Reviewer may include her or his conclusions. The Reviewer may additionally attach other materials to the review form (e.g., written remarks, the text along with comments).
  • The content of the Review is not publicised. Review reports may be made available to the Authors (after the anonymisation process.) Review reports are available to the Editors.
  • Any interaction between Authors and Reviewers is unacceptable. Their contact is anonymised. Conclusions and review reports as well as Author’s replies are sent via the Editorial Team or using the right system allowing for data anonymisation in the double-blind review mode.
Confidentiality Rule: All reviewed works are confidential, which means that disclosing them to third parties is unacceptable (except for authorised persons).

Rules for Preserving Objectivity Standards: Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of Authors’ works is considered inappropriate. All observations of a Reviewer should be justified adequately.

Scholarly Integrity Rule: The Reviewers are committed to meeting the highest standards and ethics rules  regarding the publication of scientific text and preventing practices that counteract the established standards. In order to do that they may enter adequate corrections, and also, in the case of suspicion of dishonest practices (plagiarism, falsifying research results etc.) or unethical actions, take a decision not to publish the text.

Rule of Sources Integrity: The Reviewers, if need be, should cite reference works not included by the Author. Any significant similarities to other works should also be indicated and the Editorial Team should be notified about them.

Fair Play Rule: Issues such as race, gender, faith, origin, nationality or political beliefs of the Authors must not, in any way, affect the result of the review Texts sent for publication are evaluated first and foremost in terms of their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. Decisions of the Reviewers must be based upon scientific values. 

Rule for Counteracting Conflicts of Interest among Reviewers: The Reviewer must not use the reviewed works for her or his personal needs and merits. They cannot evaluate texts in whose case there may be a conflict of interest with its Author/Authors.

In the case of the Reviewer a conflict of interest may arise in circumstances where there are any doubts regarding her or his impartiality or her or his actions may be in any way influenced during the reviewing process, e.g., business, financial, legal affiliations; Reviewer’s opinions, scientific competition, and family relations.

Rule of Timeliness: The Reviewers are obliged to provide the review by a set deadline. If for some reason (factual knowledge, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or review the article, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team of this fact.

In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines  and COPE Flowcharts.