The review process

The review process

The procedure of reviewing articles in Slavia Antiqua is in compliance with the recommendations included in a brochure of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education “Good practice in review procedures in science”, Warsaw 2011. The journal also follows European Commission guidelines on Ethics in Social Science and Humanities. In ethically relevant cases, we recommend our peer reviewers following COPE Ethical Standards for Peer Reviewers.

To ensure the originality and high quality of published articles, the journal applies the latest procedures for evaluating them, and uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system using iThenticate software. The system makes it possible to identify similarities in a text by comparing it with publications available on the Internet and indexed databases, and identifying the sources of passages. Works in which borrowings from other authors are found inappropriately cited or plagiarized will be rejected by the editors, and violations of either copyright or good scientific practice will be reported to the management of the author's employing institution. If plagiarism is found in a published paper, the Editorial Board will withdraw the text and post a notice to this effect on the journal's website and/or in the printed version.

Manuscripts are submitted to the journal Slavia Antiqua via the PRESSto platform and by sending the manuscript to the email address of the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.


Peer Review Process

1. Manuscripts are submitted to the journal Slavia Antiqua via the PRESSto platform and by sending the manuscript to the email address of the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

2. By submitting a manuscript for publication in the journal, authors agree to undergo the full peer-review process.

3. Submitted articles are first evaluated by the Editorial Board and screened using the iThenticate plagiarism-detection software (within a maximum of two weeks). They are then reviewed by independent external reviewers (within a maximum of one month) who are not members of the journal’s Editorial Board.

4. The Editorial Board selects reviewers from among specialists in the relevant field. In the case of interdisciplinary manuscripts, more than two reviewers may be appointed.

5. Submitted manuscripts are not sent to reviewers affiliated with the same institution as the author or to individuals who may have a conflict of interest with the author. Manuscripts are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double-blind review).

6. Reviewers must not use any knowledge gained from a manuscript prior to its publication. Reviewers may communicate exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and the editor assigned to the manuscript. Reviewers must not disclose any information relating to the review process. Only the Editorial Board may mediate the exchange of information, reviews, and responses to reviews between reviewers and authors.

7. The following aspects are evaluated: the article’s conformity with the journal’s scope; the appropriateness of the title; the timeliness of the topic in light of the current state of research; the correctness of the methodology employed; the proper interpretation of the findings and the conclusions drawn; and the formal correctness of the manuscript (its structure, clarity and linguistic accuracy, and the proper formatting of footnotes). Two unequivocally positive reviews are required for a manuscript to be accepted for publication. In the event of divergent evaluations, the editors may appoint a third reviewer.
REVIEW FORM

8. After receiving and analyzing the complete set of reviews, the Editorial Board informs the author of the outcome of the evaluation within a maximum of two weeks. Correspondence with the Editorial Board of Antiq. regarding any comments or the manuscript’s qualification for publication is possible.

9. The review is submitted in written form and contains an unequivocal recommendation from the reviewer as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.

10. If two negative reviews are received, the manuscript is rejected. If one positive and one negative review are received, a third reviewer is appointed.

11. The final decision on whether an article is accepted for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

The reviewers’ duties:

Contribution to the editorial decisions: double-blind reviews make it possible for an editor to make decisions about a specific article and assist the authors in improving their texts.

Timeliness: every selected reviewer should write a review within maximum two weeks upon receiving the text from the editors.

Confidentiality: the texts submitted for reviewing should be regarded confidential documents. They mustn’t be forwarded to other individuals. Reviewers communicate exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief and the editor assigned to the article; they are not permitted to disclose any information relating to the review, and the Editorial Board acts as the sole intermediary between reviewers and authors.

Evaluation standards: the evaluation should be objective, fair and carried out in accordance with the reviewers’ knowledge, skills and experience. The review is submitted in written form and contains the reviewer’s unequivocal recommendation as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.

Disclosure and a conflict of interests: the reviewers should not agree to evaluate works if there is a conflict of interests with any of the authors involved in a specific text. A conflict of interest is understood to exist where there are direct personal relationships between the reviewer and the author, including kinship up to the second degree, legal relationships, marriage, professional supervisory or subordinate relationships, direct academic collaboration within the two years preceding the year in which the review is prepared, or other social benefits.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): reviewers are required to prepare their reviews independently and must not delegate this task to artificial intelligence (AI) tools, automated systems, or third parties who have not been appointed by the Editorial Board as reviewers. Reviewers are required to report to the Editorial Board and the publishers any identified use by authors of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to generate substantive content. Artificial intelligence  tools may be used solely as technical assistance for checking linguistic accuracy and formatting the text. If a reviewer has used such tools, this fact must be disclosed in the review.

List of reviewers for Volume LXVI (for the year 2025)

  • Dariusz Adamczyk, Ph.D., German Historical Institute, Warsaw, Poland
  • Prof. Jacek Banaszkiewicz, Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
  • Peter Bednár, Ph.D., CSc., Institute of Archaeology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Nitra, Slovakia
  • Felix Biermann, Ph.D., Institute of History, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
  • Prof. Artur Błażejewski, Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
  • Prof. Piotr Boroń, Institute of History, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
  • Prof. Ilona Czamańska, Faculty of History, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Prof. Maria Dekówna, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
  • Michał Dzik, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology, University of Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland
  • Marek Florek, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland
  • Prof. Małgorzata Grupa, Institute of Archaeology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland
  • Marek Jankowiak, Ph.D., University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Krzysztof Jarzęcki, Ph.D., Leon Wyczółkowski District Museum, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Kamil Kajkowski, Ph.D., West Kashubian Museum, Bytów, Poland
  • David Kalhous, Ph.D., Department of Auxiliary Sciences of History and Archival Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
  • KWU Prof. Dariusz Karczewski, Faculty of History, Kazimierz Wielki University, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Piotr Kręzel, Ph.D., Faculty of Philology, University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland
  • Tomasz Kurasiński, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Łódź, Poland
  • Magdalena Majorek-Lipowicz, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology, University of Łódź, Łódź, Poland
  • Anna Myszka, Ph.D., Faculty of Christian Philosophy, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland
  • Prof. Marta Osypińska, Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
  • Prof. Viktor Ohar, Institute of Geology, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Yaroslav Onyshchuk, Ph.D., Department of Archaeology and Special Historical Studies, Ivan Franko National University, Lviv, Ukraine
  • Aleksandra Pankiewicz, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
  • Prof. Stanisław Rosik, Institute of History, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland
  • Paweł Sankiewicz, Ph.D., Museum of the First Piasts at Lednica, Dziekanowice, Poland
  • Marina Segeeva, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Sylwia Siemianowska, Ph. D., Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wrocław, Poland
  • AMU Prof. Dariusz Andrzej Sikorski, Faculty of History, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • UW Prof. Krzysztof Skwierczyński, Institute of Art History, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
  • MCSU Prof. Joanna Sobiesiak, Institute of History, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Lublin, Poland
  • Łukasz Maurycy Stanaszek, Ph.D., State Archaeological Museum, Warsaw, Poland
  • Prof. Andrzej Szyjewski, Institute of Religious Studies, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
  • Grzegorz Śnieżko, Ph.D., Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
  • Sergij Taranenko, Ph.D., Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra National Reserve, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Robert Tomczak, Ph.D., Institute of History, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic
  • Prof. Helle Vandkilde, Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark