Peer Review Process

All articles submitted for publication in FSP are subject to a double-blind peer review procedure. The review procedure carried out at FSP meets the requirements of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
Here is a step-by-step description of our peer review procedure:

1. The Assistant to the Editors at FSP receives your article.
2. Your article is read by the FSP Editors and/or Section Editors. At this stage we check whether your text meets our basic requirements and make sure that it has all the necessary references and that it follows our layout requirements. If the FSP staff have no objections to the above, they choose the text’s future reviewers.
3. An anonymized version of your text is sent to two anonymous referees, who do not know your particulars and will not know them until the article is published. When choosing referees for a particular article we make sure that there is no conflict of interest between the author and either of the reviewers.
4. The referees send their reviews of your text to the Editors. On the basis of the reviews FSP’s Editors decide whether your article can be published in our journal. If the two referees’ reviews and opinions on the article vary significantly from each other, we may commission a third review.
5. You receive anonymized versions of the reviews, often along with the Editors’ guidelines as to what adjustments need to be made (if any).
6. You send the final version of your text to the Assistant to the Editors.
7. If there are no further objections to the article’s content, FSP’s Technical Editors prepare the final version of your article.
8. You receive the final version of your article for a final proof reading and acceptation.
9. Your article is published in FSP.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publishing ethics

The editorial staff at Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia are committed to a policy of academic fairness and transparency. In our editorial work we follow the recommendations of The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Our staff make sure that the published research output is original (i.e. not published or considered for publication elsewhere), relevant in terms of the journal’s scope and the respective research disciplines as well as of high quality. See Our review procedure for more details.
Any allegations of research misconduct relating to articles published in our journal should be reported to the editorial staff and will be considered by the Editor-in-chief, the approach being chosen on a case-to-case basis.
The journal is open to post-publication discussions with regard to the journal’s content. In such cases please contact our editorial staff.
We expect the authors of the submitted papers to recognize the contributions of other researchers to the respective fields and provide all the necessary references to previous research.
Papers submitted for publication elsewhere or previously published will not be considered for publication with our journal.
It is one of our duties as editors of a scholarly journal to prevent ghost-writing, guest authorship and honorary authorship. This applies mainly to texts that are co-written by multiple authors. When submitting articles for publication in FSP, authors may be asked to reveal how much each of the authors has contributed to the creation of the text in question and how.
Authors may also be asked to submit a financial disclosure, i.e. state what institutions have financed the research that a submitted article is based on (if applicable).
Papers submitted to FSP are subject to a double-blind review procedure. We expect our reviewers to remain objective, to provide a review that is to the best of their abilities and to always provide explanations for their remarks regarding the reviewed papers.
Reviewers who feel that they cannot remain impartial in the review process, e.g. due to a potential conflict of interests with one or more of the authors, are expected to inform the editor of such instances and request to be excluded from the review process. So should potential reviewers who feel that the proposed manuscript is outside of their areas of expertise.
The reviewed articles should be treated confidentially until they have been published.

Reviewers

Artur Jazdon, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Henrik Jørgensen, Aarhus University
Dr hab Wojciech Krawczuk, Jagiellonian University in Kraków
Gert Kreutzer, University of Cologne
Michał Larek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Svein Lie, University of Oslo
Christer Lindqvist, Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald
Witold Maciejewski, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warszawa
Jakub Morawiec, University of Silesia in Katowice
Bolesław Mrozewicz, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Randi Nilsen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
Elisabeth Oxfeldt, University of Oslo
Bernard Piotrowski, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
lse Ryen, University of Oslo
Sylwia Izabela Schab, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Stephan Michael Schröder, University of Cologne
Maria Sibińska,  Gdańsk