- Énoncé de mission
- Politiques de rubriques
- Processus d'évaluation par les pairs
- Périodicité
- Politique d'accès libre
Énoncé de mission
The mission of Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae is to publish thematically and methodologically diverse articles within the research area of the humanities, mainly in the field of literary studies and linguistics (both in the area of Polish and neophilological studies), as well as cultural studies. The biaannual volumes of our journal cover multidisciplinary approaches to the humanities in various aspects. Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae is a biannual journal open to both experienced scholars and young authors who are at the beginning of their academic career. The journal is thus an excellent platform for an intergenerational dialogue and the presentation of different points of view on the topics discussed in each volume. By inviting authors, reviewers and members of the editorial board from internationally renowned academic centres abroad conducting research in the humanities, we are also concerned with the internationalisation of the results of research conducted in Poland. Since 2017, scientific articles have been published thematic issues that present selected literary, linguistic and cultural phenomena.
Politiques de rubriques
Table of contents
 Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
 Évalué par les pairs |
Introduction
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Articles
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Literary Section
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Cultural Studies Section
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Linguistics Section
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Reviews
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Reports
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Biograms
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
About the Authors
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Materials
| Soumissions actives |
Indexé |
Évalué par les pairs |
Processus d'évaluation par les pairs
Review process
Review process – description of stages
1. The submitted article is subject to preliminary review by members of the editorial board. During the initial review, the compliance of the text with the profile of the journal, the subject of the issue and the editorial rules adopted by the journal are checked (read more). If the text has not been prepared in accordance with the editorial rules set out in the instructions for authors, the editors ask the Author to make corrections and additions.
2. The article is verified in the anti-plagiarism program before being forwarded to reviewers.3. Texts that comply with the editorial rules are forwarded to two independent reviewers. Reviewers are assigned by the editor-in-chief of the journal in consultation with the members of the editorial board.
4. At least two independent reviewers from outside the institution affiliated by the Author and the Publisher shall be appointed to evaluate each publication.
5. In the case of texts written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers has to be affiliated with a foreign institution other than the institution affiliated by the author of the work.
6. The review process is based on a model of mutual anonymity, in which the author and reviewers do not know their identities (the so-called double-blind review process ).
7. Otherwise, the reviewer declares that there is no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is considered to be a) direct personal relations between the reviewer and the author (kinship to the second degree, legal relationships, conflict); b) relations of professional subordination between the reviewer and the author; (c) direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review between the reviewer and the author.
8. The review must be in writing and end with an unequivocal conclusion as to whether the article should be allowed for publication or rejected.
9. The reviewer prepares the review in electronic form via his individual account on the journal's website https://journals.umcs.pl/ff/ and publishes it on the journal's platform. The journal's system ensures mutual anonymity - it does not allow to identify both the author of the manuscript and the reviewer.
10. Through the journal's platform, the reviewer receives individual access to the file with the text of the article and possible additional files.
11. The reviewer may choose the following recommendations regarding the reviewed text: acceptance of the submitted text; requirement of amendments; request to resubmit; rejection of the submitted text.
12. After receiving both reviews, the editors make further decisions:
o If both reviews are positive – the editors forward them to the author and ask for a response to the comments and possible corrections. After resending the corrected version of the text, the editors evaluate it and qualify it for printing, in justified cases they may ask reviewers to re-evaluate the text;
o If one of the reviews is positive and the other negative – the editorial board appoints an additional reviewer and after receiving the third review decides whether or not to accept the text for publication and forwards the reviews to the author;
o If both reviews are negative – the editors pass them on to the author and inform about the rejection of the text.
13. In inconclusive situations or if the reviews are inconsistent, admission to publication is decided by the editorial board, which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.
14. The author of the text is obliged to respond thoroughly to the comments and remarks voiced in the review.
15. The names of reviewers of individual issues are not disclosed; once a year, the journal publishes a list of cooperating reviewers on its website.
16. The review process takes about 2-4 months (excluding holiday periods).
Basic criteria for rejecting a scientific article in "Annales UMCS. Sectio FF Philologiae":
- lack of compliance with the profile of the journal (papers in the field of humanities: philological, cultural studies, linguistics) or the thematic scope of the issue – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board or detailed assessment of the reviewer (see guidelines for reviewers);
- exceeding the recommended size of the text (30,000 characters including summaries and bibliography – see editorial rules) – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board;
- failure to adapt the text to editorial guidelines (see more broadly – editorial guidelines) – the decision is made after the initial assessment of the editorial board or the detailed assessment of the reviewer (see guidelines for reviewers);
- negative reviews: obtaining two negative reviews results in automatic rejection of the text; in the case of a single negative review, the subsequent negative review leads to the rejection of the article; in special cases, the decision to disqualify the text is made by the editors.
Guidelines for reviewers
General guidelines
1. The reviewer agrees to prepare a review if he considers that the topic and issues of the article are consistent with his competences and research interests, which will allow to prepare a reliable and substantive assessment of the submitted article.
2. The reviewer, agreeing to prepare a review, accepts the deadlines of review in the journal – 2 months. If the reviewer finds that it is not possible to complete the review in a timely manner, he should notify the editor.
3. A reviewer should not undertake a review of articles if he suspects that there may be a conflict of interest resulting from competitiveness, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relations with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted text.
Detailed guidelines - criteria for the evaluation of reviewed texts (scientific articles, review articles, conference reports)
1. The reviewer should evaluate the submitted text, taking into account: the compliance of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal; the substantive side of the text; the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness; the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature, in particular bibliographic items on the SCOPUS and Web of Science databases; the compliance of the abstract, keywords and bibliography with the requirements of the journal; consistency and transparency of the text; linguistic and stylistic level.
2. The reviewer evaluates the compatibility of the reviewed text with the profile of the journal "Annales UMCS Sectio FF Philologiae", which publishes works in the field of humanities: philological, cultural studies, linguistics) or with the thematic scope of a given issue;
3. The reviewer shall state whether the reviewed article is an original scientific work.
4. The review shall indicate in particular:
1. whether the title is consistent with the problematic content of the article;
2. whether the author has described, correctly selected and applied research methods; whether the illustrations, charts or tables provided are legible;
3. whether the research process has been correctly carried out by the author and whether the results obtained are elements of new knowledge; whether he presents arguments and formulates answers to the questions asked, discusses the results obtained by other researchers, determines the importance of the research carried out in the field of linguistics, literary studies or cultural studies.
5. The reviewer of a review article should determine whether the evaluated text discusses a publication important for the field of humanities and whether the author referred to the methodological correctness and substantive side of the reviewed item.
6. The reviewer of the conference report states whether the text defines the subject and purpose of the conference, presents content of the papers presented and indicates the importance of the conference for the humanities.
7. The reviewer determines whether the abstract of the reviewed article meets the requirements indicated in the guidelines for authors:
- whether the abstract of the article is consistent with the subject and content of the article and presents the topic of research, main theses, the purpose of the research, the originality of the research approaches, the value for a given scientific discipline,
- whether the abstract of the review article determines: the subject and meaning of the reviewed item in the perspective of the relevant scientific discipline, contains the assessment of the logical and methodological correctness of the reviewed item as well as conclusions of the reviewer;
- whether the abstract of the conference report specifies: the topic, date and place of the conference, the subject and purpose of the conference, the significance of the conference for a given scientific discipline.
8. The reviewer evaluates whether the keywords were selected correctly.
9. The reviewer evaluates the linguistic and stylistic level, consistency and clarity of the text.
10. The reviewer shall state the compliance of the text with the principles of formatting the text, footnotes and bibliography specified in the guidelines for authors.
Périodicité
No 1 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of October
No 2 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of December
Politique d'accès libre
The journal is available, based on the principles of open access. This means that there is open, free-of-charge and fast access to the electronic version of each scientific publication featured in the journal. Every user is entitled to read, copy, disseminate and quote content of articles, conference and research reports as well as book reviews published in open access. The user has access to all materials without financial, legal or technical restrictions, whilst respecting copyright issues.
