Publishing procedure

logo poziom czarny                                                                                                                                                 Études et Travaux



download pdf

Stage 1. Submitting a paper proposal

Papers sent in to the journal’s editorial board are first evaluated in terms of whether they meet the initial formal requirements (i.e.: has the standard author’s declaration been filled out; have the legal issues linked to the illustrations been settled; has the author agreed to sign an author copyright agreement establishing the conditions of reproducing, distributing etc. of the paper by the journal’s publisher) as defined in the Author Guidelines published on the journal’s webpage (, following which confirmation is required of whether the text generally conforms to the detailed guidelines for manuscript preparation as presented in the above-mentioned Guidelines (provision of: the manuscript in Word format, in English, French or German; a short abstract and keywords in English, the title of the paper in English if the text has been written in German or French, the authors’ affiliation(s) and e-mail address(es); the illustrations in separate graphic files and the illustration captions; a bibliography containing all the works quoted and prepared according to the reference citation method adopted in the journal).

If the paper fulfils the above-listed requirements, it will be considered as having been submitted, which may be confirmed upon the author’s request by an appropriate document issued by the editing board. As long as the paper does not fulfil the above-listed requirements, it cannot be subjected to further editing procedures and is not considered as having been submitted.


Stage 2. Initial evaluation of the research content

The second stage of the editing procedure involves an initial evaluation of the article’s research content conducted by the editorial board (the editor-in-chief, the remaining scientific editors, the subject editor – if one has been assigned for the volume). The main goal of this assessment is the identification of those papers that contain serious or fundamental mistakes and need to be refined by the author before being subjected to further stages of the editing procedure. The remaining papers that have received a positive opinion automatically move on to the next stage.


Stage 3. Overall evaluation of the research content and general review procedures

This stage involves the overall evaluation of the paper’s research content. It should be assessed by:
a. the subject editor;
b. reviewers (at least two); the decision about the choice of reviewers appropriate for assessing a given text is made by the editor-in-chief based on consultations with the volume’s remaining scientific editors and, in particular, on the subject editor’s opinion (if one has been appointed for the given volume);
c. the editor-in-chief and at least one of the volume’s scientific editors; members of the editorial board also introduce any necessary technical corrections to the paper, including those linked to the scholarly apparatus (bibliography, footnotes).

Reviews prepared by independent specialists in a particular field and who are not affiliated with the institute publishing the journal constitute a fundamental part of an article’s evaluation. The identity of the reviewer is not revealed to the author, while the article’s author also remains anonymous to the reviewer (the so-called double blind peer-review system). The paper is reviewed based on a number of criteria (regarding the character and the general value of the text, the applied research method, the relation between the discussed problem and the research material, the presented interpretation and the illustrations, the validity and exhaustiveness of the bibliography and footnotes, the correct usage of language and terminology), as defined in the review questionnaire form available on the journal’s webpage ( The review can suggest that the paper is suitable for publishing, requires some minor improvements or to be completely rewritten or that it should be rejected. If the reviews of the same paper differ significantly in their evaluations of its value, the editorial board may appoint additional reviewers.

The papers are also assessed by the editorial board, while proposed corrections and changes as formulated by its members are marked on the text of the paper (its electronic version) as comments and as tracked changes. Any modifications resulting directly from the adaptation of the paper to the journal’s formal rules are exceptions to this rule; such changes are not marked as tracked changes.


Stage 4. Corrections introduced by the author, finalizing the review procedures and making the decision to accept/reject the paper

At this stage, the author has a final opportunity to introduce significant modifications to the paper. If the reviews do not disqualify the paper completely, the author will be asked to introduce the necessary corrections suggested by the reviewers and the editorial board. In cases in which the author does not agree with the reviewers’ or editorial board’s substantial comments, the author is obliged to present an exhaustive written explication containing his/her argumentation. In justified cases, the editorial board reserves the right to provide access to this explication to the previous reviewers of the paper. In cases in which the reviewer/editorial board state that the explication presented by the author is insufficient, a decision concerning further conduct will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on consultations with the remaining members of the editorial board.

The authors of the papers who have introduced the necessary modifications, as suggested by the editorial board and reviewers, will be requested to sign a standard licence agreement, determining the conditions under which the journal’ publisher may use the author’s work (i.e. the paper). After the editorial board has received the signed licence agreement, the paper will be deemed as having been accepted for publication, which the editorial board can attest by issuing an appropriate document.


Stage 5. Language verification, desktop publishing, final proofreading by the author and the editorial board

Papers accepted for print will be verified linguistically by a native speaker. The editorial board will then submit the text for desktop publishing. Following this stage, the authors will receive their papers for final verification. At the author’s request, the editorial board may provide access to a version of the papers with all the modifications introduced during language verification marked. At this stage, it is only possible (both in the case of the author and the editorial board) for minor modifications that do not have a substantial impact on the text’s layout to be introduced. This is the final stage of the review procedures in which the author is a participant.


Stage 6. Revision of the modifications introduced during final proofreading and printing the volume

This stage involves the revision of the corrections introduced to the text following layout designing and any other minor editing work. It ends with the entire volume being submitted for print. After it has been printed, all the authors will receive a copy of the volume. The papers published in paper format will also be made available in electronic form without any restrictions on the journal’s webpage (


DMC Firewall is developed by Dean Marshall Consultancy Ltd