The procedure for reviewing academic papers published in “The Archivist of Zamość” annual Journal follows the guidelines described in the Communication of the Polish Minister of Science and Higher Education of 29 May 2013.

I General rules

1. The review and evaluation process applies to all papers of a scientific nature submitted for publication in “The Archivist of Zamość”.
2. By submitting an article for publication, the author agrees to this review process.
3. The initial assessment of the article is carried out by the editorial team of “The Archivist of Zamość”, which either rejects the text or qualifies it for the review stage.
4. Papers are reviewed by two reliable and competent reviewers in their respective fields or scientific disciplines, holding at least a doctoral degree, who are independent, have no employment relationship with the publisher, and have no conflicts of interest with the author.
5. Papers are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double-blind review process).
6. The list of reviewers is published in each issue of the journal and once a year on the website.

II Detailed rules
1. Two positive reviews are a prerequisite for the manuscript to be accepted for publication.
2. If a reviewer recommends revisions, the condition for publication is their consideration and incorporation by the Author.
3. The reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality and secrecy of any information provided by the editor.
4. The reviewer cannot use knowledge about the work before its publication.
5. In the event of suspicion of similarity between the article and previously published works, the reviewer is obligated to promptly inform the editorial team of “The Archivist of Zamość” about it.

III. Guidelines for the reviewers
1. The review should be conducted using the Review Form.
2. The signed and scanned form should be submitted through the OJS Platform. It is also acceptable to send a paper version of the article review to the editor’s address, with a handwritten signature. The review is kept at the editor’s office for 5 years.
3. The written review must contain a clear conclusion by the reviewer regarding the conditions for the article’s publication or rejection.
4. Reviews that are not prepared in accordance with the substantive and formal rules of scientific reviews, contain unjustified criticism or praise of the scientific article, lack logical connection between content and conclusion (i.e., reviews that are highly critical but have a positive conclusion or vice versa) will not be considered.
5. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on an analysis of the comments provided in the review and the final version of the article submitted by the Author.

IV Suggestions for reviewers

1. An article may be accepted if it:
a. contains innovative interpretations;
b. relates to the subject matter of broadly understood arts sciences, cultural and religious sciences, history, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, security sciences, social communication and media sciences, political and administrative sciences, or sociological sciences;
c. presents the state of research on a given subject;
d. discusses the results of research in areas related to the journal's thematic scope, provided their impact on these fields is demonstrated.

2. An article should be returned for revision if it:

a. does not clearly and adequately specify the topic or problem;
b. utilises inappropriate, incorrect, or imprecise scientific terminology;
c. has an incorrect text structure;
d. lacks sufficient relevant literature.

3. An article should be rejected if it:
a. demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the discussed subject matter;
b. the formulated hypothesis is not plausible;
c. there is a significant disproportion between the importance of the discussed topic and the length of its presentation, or it is missing altogether;
d. it takes the form of aggressive polemics against another publication (book or article).

Review form