Krakow International Studies

Submission and Publication Procedure

1. Submissions should be uploaded via the OJS form. Submitted texts are initially assessed by the Managing Editor for compliance with the Journal technical requirements. In case of any formal deficiencies the article will be returned to the author for correction/supplementation.
2. Articles that are complete and technically compliant with the Journal guidelines will be submitted for substantive review by the Editor-in-Chief and the Subject Editor, depending on the scientific discipline (Management and Quality Studies and Security Studies, possibly extended to include Political and Administrative Science and International Relations).

Article evaluation criteria:

• Conformity with the Journal's objectives and scope
• Scientific nature of the study
• Conformity of the title to the content
• Correctness of the article's structure
• Creative nature of the study
• Defining the study's objectives and methodology
• Achieving the established objectives
• New findings and value for the scientific community
• Language quality – correctness, clarity, and precision
• Selection of literature and correct references
• Logic of the conclusions drawn and their originality
1. The accepted article is subjected to an anti-plagiarism system review. [link do zakładki Anti-plagiarism checking] The system's similarity report is analyzed in detail by Managing Editor. If it indicates only minor additions are necessary (e.g., quotation marks, adding references), it is sent to the author with a request for corrections. If plagiarism is detected, the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University legal department is consulted.
2. The article is then reviewed by two reviewers. The identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process (double-blind peer review). Before being sent to the reviewers, the materials are prepared for anonymized review in accordance with Elsevier’s recommendations.

A review form is used.

Reviewers can:

• accept the manuscript without corrections,
• request necessary corrections (and possibly request a revised version of the article be sent to them for further review),
• reject the article as unsuitable for publication in the journal (negative review).
1. The Editor-in-Chief and the Subject Editor (issue editor) consider the reviews, which are then sent to the authors in an anonymized form, with all data enabling the identification of the reviewers removed.
2. If the review indicates the need for changes, the authors are given a deadline in the correspondence to respond and submit a revised version of the file.
3. The author has the right to respond to the comments in the negative review. Each such case is considered individually by the Editor-in-Chief.
4. In the event of a single negative review, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision. They may reject the manuscript or refer it to a third reviewer, whose opinion will be decisive.
5. Two negative reviews mean the complete rejection of the manuscript. There is no procedure for amending the article after two negative reviews.
6. After the peer review process, the corrected article undergoes copyediting. The author will receive the final version of the manuscript with tracked changes for review and approval. The deadline for providing a response will be specified in the accompanying correspondence.
7. Texts submitted for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Office in terms of technical, formal, and substantive aspects. Issues such as race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the political beliefs of the authors do not influence the evaluation of the articles. If the Author suspects that this rule has not been followed, they may submit a complaint to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

Review Procedure

1. A double-blind peer review model applies. (Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities.)
2. The Editorial Office appoints two independent reviewers to evaluate each article. Each reviewer is:
• an expert in a given field of science,
• not affiliated with the Journal Editorial Office or Editorial Board,
• from outside the research unit affiliated with the author of the publication.
3. The Editorial Office is responsible for selecting the reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on:
• research interests,
• scientific achievements,
• documented competence in the field of science to which the text belongs.
4. When appointing a reviewer, the Editorial Office takes into account the principle of preventing conflicts of interest. If a conflict of interest is suspected, the reviewer is obligated to decline the review. See the Journal’s Conflict of Interest Policy.
5. A selected reviewer may decline to review (e.g., due to inability to meet review deadlines or the article’s topic being incompatible with their research interests). In such a case, they are obligated to immediately notify the Editorial Office.
6. The review is always in writing. A review form is used.
7. The Editorial Office always informs authors of the results of the review of the submitted manuscript.
8. The Editorial Team and reviewers adhere to the principle of confidentiality and do not disclose any information about submitted articles or review results to unauthorized persons.
9. The names of reviewers for individual articles and issues of the journal are not disclosed. At the end of the calendar year, a list of reviewers collaborating with the journal in a given year is published on the website (without assigning reviewers to articles).