PEER REVIEW PROCEDURE

• By submitting a manuscript for publication to Acta Mediaevalia. Series Nova, the authors consent to the review procedure, which takes approximately 3 months.
• Submitted texts are first assessed by the Editorial Board. The texts are evaluated fairly (fair play), exclusively on the basis of their academic merit and relevance to the scope of the journal, without regard to the nationality, race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship or political views of the authors.
• Articles qualified for the evaluation process are submitted for review to two independent reviewers.
• Submitted texts are not sent to reviewers from the same research institution that the authors are affiliated with or to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. A conflict of interest is understood as professional dependence (professional subordination), direct scientific cooperation (in the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review) and direct personal relationships (relationship to the second degree, marriage) between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. Reviewers are also not members of the Editorial Board (i.e. the Editor-in-chief, Assistant Editor and other editors).
• The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article is maintained (double-blind peer review procedure). The review must contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of admitting the article to publication or its rejection. Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review will not be taken into account, including reviews dominated by unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. reviews that are critical but with a positive conclusion or vice versa.
• Reviewers evaluate a manuscript in terms of:

           a) scientific value, originality and relevance

           b) clarity and correctness of objectives

           c) methodology and argumentation coherence

           d) clarity and correctness of conclusions

           e) adequacy of works cited

           f) language and style.

• The reviewer’s decision is limited to the following options:

1. The article can be published without additional corrections.
2. The article can be published without additional correction but it does not contain any new solutions or interpretations; it’s better to save space for another article.
3. The article can be published after introducing the changes suggested by the reviewer.
4. The article cannot be published in its present form. The text requires serious changes, which should take into account the comments of the reviewer. The reviewer should specify the problems and indicate their solutions.
5. The article cannot be published, there is no real chance of its revision. The reviewer should justify their decision.
6. The article could be published but in a different journal. The reviewer should justify their decision.

• Rational and justified opinions presented in the review are binding for the author of the reviewed article. They are obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and correct the article. When the author is recommended to make corrections, all reviewers have the right to verify their work.
• Criteria suggested to reviewers when evaluating articles:

1. Positive review:
   • the paper contains original interpretations presented with a high degree of probability
   • the subject of the article corresponds with the profile of the journal
   • the article is correctly written in terms of the applied method and the principles of scientific work
   • the article contains status quaestionis or presents the history of research on the problem in question
2. Returning the text for corrections (taking into account p. 1):
   • insufficient bibliography and lack of discussion with scientific literature in the context of the analysed issues
   • incomplete scientific article structure
   • lack of terminological precision
   • unclear formulation of the research topic or problem
3. Articles that need to be rejected (taking into account p. 1 and 2):
   • lack of knowledge about the discussed issues
   • extreme lack of probability of the formulated hypothesis
   • lack of proportion between the importance of the topic under discussion and the length and complexity of the presentation
   • a style that is aggressively polemical with another article or book

• The reviewer should notify the Editorial Board of the possible similarity between the reviewed article and any previously published texts.
• The reviewer creates a review by logging in to their journal account and filling out an electronic form.
• The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. Typically, the review deadline is two weeks (however, it is possible to prolong it for justified reasons).
• Reviewers are obliged to keep all information provided by the Editorial Board confidential. Reviewers are not allowed to use the knowledge about from the paper before its publication.
• In the case of contradictory opinions, the editor will refer the paper to a third reviewer. The decision of the third reviewer is final.
• The Assistant Editor will present the author with reviews without disclosing reviewers’ identity. The author of a paper is obliged to respond to reviewers’ suggestions before publishing a paper.
• The decision on qualifying the text for publication (or not) is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and of the final version of the article provided by the author.
• Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes online an updated list of reviewers who worked on the current issue of the journal.