Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The publications of the journal concern the following:

  • general history of science and its relationships with other domains of culture (philosophy, religion, art and technology) and other meta-sciences (philosophy of science, sociology of the scientific knowledge, scientometrics etc.);
  • history of specific disciplines (scientific theories, world views, scholars and scientific institutions);
  • history of scientific institutions researching the history of science;
  • tools and techniques for research in the history of scienceand teaching of the history of science.


Particular importance is placed on:

  • the Polish contribution to science;
  • mutual interactions of the Polish science and the foreign science;
  • international collaboration regarding the history of science;
  • open science regarding the history of science (including digital libraries) both on a national and international level;
  • critical appraisal of bibliometrics in the light of the history of science (cf. bookmark: Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics).


The sections of the journal:

  • “Editorial”;
  • “Focal point” (the section dedicated to discussing the achievements of scholars or the research issues);
  • “Science in Poland”;
  • “Science in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe”;
  • “Science in a European and global context”;
  • “Science without borders” (a section dedicated to the analysis of genesis, content and reception of scientific “products”, e.g. theories or scientific instruments);
  • “Tools and techniques for research in the history of science, teaching the history of science";
  • “Bibliometrics, science policy, scholarly communication” (cf. bookmark: Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics);
  • “Presentations and reviews”;
  • “Discussions and polemics”;
  • “Letters to the Editor”;
  • “Scientific chronicle” (news and conference reports, report on the activity of the PAU Commission on the History of Science);
  • In memoriam”.

Note:

The texts published in the journal are in the form of research articles or, in exceptional cases, research notes, and also interviews, memoirs, and reports.

A research note is a short research article intended to present, in a synthetic way, an important issue. The research note is limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations.

The language of the publications

Polish and English are fully eligible languages of the publications (other languages are permissible in exceptional and duly justified cases).

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

EDITORIAL

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

FOCAL POINT

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE IN POLAND

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SCIENCE BEYOND BORDERS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

RESEARCH PAPERS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

PRESENTATIONS AND REVIEWS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

BIBLIOMETRICS, SCIENCE POLICY, SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

SCIENTIFIC CHRONICLE

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

NEWS AND CONFERENCE REPORTS

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

DISCUSSIONS, POLEMICS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

VARIA

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

RAPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE PAU COMMISSION ON THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

IN MEMORIAM

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum attaches great importance to fair procedures for peer review of texts submitted for publication in the journal as a means to foster its scientific and editorial development.

The journal puts into practice the ideas presented in specialist studies describing the good practices of the reviewing procedure – see Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011; Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011a; 2011b; Hames 2016.

Each text submitted to the journal undergoes the following review assessment procedure:

  • In the peer review process, the principle of no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers is respected, i.e. the Reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review.
  • The submitted text receives an ID number, which will be used in the subsequent stages of the review procedure to ensure the anonymity of the Author.
  • To check the originality of the text, it is checked by the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism service.

  • In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
  • In the opposite case, the text is reviewed internally with a particular emphasis on the consistency with the profile of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope).
  • In case of a negative evaluation, the text is rejected.
  • In the opposite case, the text is checked against the formatting guidelines of the journal (see bookmark: Guidelines for Authors, 6. Manuscript template and text formatting ― guidelines).
  • In the case of texts that are: 1) editorial commentaries, 2) interviews or recollections, 3) discussions or publication reviews, 4) reprints, 5) polemics, 6) news and conference reports, and reports on the activity of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, immediately after editorial internal review, the texts are subject to languistic proofreadings (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
  • In the case of texts that are: 1) the so-called research articles or 2) the so-called research notes (limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations), after the possible deficiencies of the texts indicated by the Editorial Team have been removed, the texts will be assessed additionally by 2 – 5 independent external Reviewers, whose respective identities will remain concealed (double-blind review). There can also be no conflict of interests between the Author and the Reviewers, i.e. the reviewers cannot remain in professional dependency or direct personal relationship (relatives, legal relationships, conflicts), and are not allowed to have directly collaborated with the Author in the two years prior to the review. The texts are subject subsequently to linguistic proofreading (made by the Editorial Team in agreement with the Authors of these texts).
  • Based on the opinion of the Reviewers, the article might be accepted for publication without changes, conditionally accepted (necessary corrections, cuts or amendments by Author indicated) or rejected.
  • After the imperfections, which have been indicated by the Reviewers and the Editorial Team, have been removed by the Author, the Editorial Team takes the final decision to accept the text for publication or reject it, and will inform the Author (or the Co-author who is the contact person) about their decision concerning the publication.
  • After the possible changes, proofreading and initial DTP, the article will be presented to the Author for final proofreading and then be accepted for publication.
  • The Editorial Team refuses to publish the article if: a) the essence of the text is not consistent with the profile and quality of the journal (see bookmark: Focus and Scope); b) the Author has neither moral nor economic rights to the text; c) the text infringes on personal rights of other people (see bookmark: Legal and Ethical Issues); d) the Author does not agree to introduce the necessary corrections proposed by the Editorial Team.
  • A list of Reviewers is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal.


BIBLIOGRPAHY

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011a: Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20publishers%20FINAL_1_0.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011b: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.

Hames, Irene 2016: Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Science Editing 2016/3(1), pp. 36–42. Available online: https://www.escienceediting.org/upload/se-3-1-36.pdf.

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce [Review procedures in science: good practices]. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Available online(29.11.2014): http://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/dobre_praktyki.pdf.

 


COPE’s solutions and the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum

Note

The table above describes the reviewing model adopted so far in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum and based on the solutions promoted by COPE.

According to COPE, many review models are possible, created by selecting at least one option from each row of the table (see COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, p. 2).

In case of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum, the original COPE table was modified as follows:
a) the variants of solutions so far used by the journal have been marked (these are fragments of the text highlighted in blue),
b) the explanatory additions have been added (these are fragments of the text highlighted in yellow).

In the future, the peer-review model of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarummay be subject to change, according to the readers’ needs and a necessity to maintain high review standards, as researchers are well aware of the many problems at the heart of the review procedure – cf. e.g. Csiszar 2016; Fronties. Science News 2016; Burley, Moylan (eds.) 2017; Scholastica 2019.

Bibliography

Burley, Rachel; Moylan, Elizabeth (eds.) 2017: Spot On Report What might peer review look like in 2030? A report from BioMed Central and Digital Science. Available online: http://events.biomedcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SpotOn_Report_PeerReview-1.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2017: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.

Csiszar, Alex 2016: Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature 532, 21 April 2016, pp. 306–308. Available online: https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.19763!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/532306a.pdf.

Fronties. Science News 2016: A Succinct History of Academic Peer Review. Open Science and Peer Review. Available online: https://frontiersinblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/peer_review_week_final_corrected.pdf.

Scholastica 2019: Why every OA journal should have peer review policies on its website and what to include? Available online: https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/why-every-oa-journal-should-have-peer-review-policies-on-website/.

 


Review Guidelines

The Editorial Team greatly appreciates collaboration with Researchers who share their expert knowledge and thus support the Authors and the Editorial Team of the journal.

Editors and reviewers are requested to treat submissions in strict confidence.

The so-called research article or the so-called research note (limited to 2,000 words, including bibliography, and to 6 pages, including illustrations) submitted for publication in the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum is subject to the so-called double-blind reviewing procedure. In this process the text is sent to 2-5 Peer Reviewers. The Author is not informed who is reviewing the text and the Peer Reviewer does not know the identity of the Author the evaluated article.

A peer review should be:

  • prepared on the Peer Review Form;
  • sent to the Editorial Team by e-mail (or via our electronic editorial system) within 30 days from the date of receipt of the article for review.

Note

If the Peer Reviewers cannot review the article within the deadline, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team.

List of Peer Reviewers of the journal

In accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, of the Republic of Poland, the List of Peer Reviewers of the journal is, with their consent, published once a year on the website of the journal (see bookmark: About, People, List of Reviewers).

General evaluation of the article

The reviewers are requested to provide an evaluation of the contents of the article by answering, among others, the following questions:

  • Does the abstract summarize the content of the article in a clear and concise manner?
  • Have the keywords been chosen correctly?
  • Is the purpose of the article clearly stated and has it been achieved?
  • Have the research methods been determined and are they appropriate for the aim of the research?
  • Does the study introduce a new approach to the subject matter and contributes to the development of the history of science?
  • Has the study been correctly organized and internally structured?
  • Is the content of the study clearly presented?
  • Is the selection of the sources and the literature complete?
  • Is the study written correctly in its formal aspect (i.e. linguistic correctness, style, footnotes, bibliography)?


Note

If the article contains language defects that hinder understanding of the text, Reviewers should indicate that in the peer review. However, in principle, it should not be the only reason for rejecting the article, because journal language Editors will try to improve the linguistic layer of the article.

Copyright

Peer Reviewers are asked to express their opinion whether the article bears the signs of plagiarism according to the copyright law.


Final evaluation of the article (Options)

Accepted for publication in Studia Historiae Scientiarum:

  • no alterations suggested;
  • small changes suggested (no second peer review), requires:

- editing
- cutting
- expanding
- completing missing references
- other changes

Significant corrections suggested (second peer review required).

Rejected from publication in Studia Historiae Scientiarum.


Comments and suggested amendments

The Peer Reviewer should justify why the article has been accepted or rejected. If the article requires changes, the Peer Reviewer should indicate the proposed changes in a transparent manner.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Editage 2013: Most common reasons for journal rejections. Available online: http://www.editage.com/insights/most-common-reasons-for-journal-rejections.

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Available online (29.11.2014): http://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/dobre_praktyki.pdf.

Pierson, David J. 2004: The top 10 reasons why manuscripts are not accepted for publication. Respiratory Care 49(10), pp. 1246–1252. Available online: http://www.rcjournal.com/contents/10.04/10.04.1246.pdf.

Thrower, Peter 2012: Eight reasons I rejected your article. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/8-reasons-i-rejected-your-article.




Note

In case of doubt, please contact the Editorial Team:

shs@pau.krakow.pl

Studia Historiae Scientiarum

Komisja Historii Nauki PAU
ul. Sławkowska 17, pok. 2, 31-016 Kraków, POLAND

Tel. (+48) 12 424 02 02
Fax (+48) 12 422 54 22

 

Publication Frequency

The journal is published annually (1 volume / year).

 

 

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.

The Editorial Team shares the opinion that open and free access to scientific publications is conducive to the dissemination of knowledge on a global scale.

For that reason, since 2013, our journal (then under the title: the Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science) has been a peer-reviewed journal with open access. It assumes the so-called diamond open access model, ie. an open and free access without embargo time.

Moreover, the journal supports the idea of unrestricted availability of scholarly citation data, in accordance with the rules promoted by the Initiative for Open Citations.

Bibliography

Fuchs, Christian; Sandoval, Marisol 2013: The diamond model of open access publishing: Why policy makers, scholars, universities, libraries, labour unions and the publishing world need to take noncommercial, non-profit open access serious. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique 11(2), pp. 428–443. Available online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/3078.

 

 

Archiving Policy

The archiving policy of the journal is defined by the so-called green RoMEO colour (SHERPA), i.e. the author can archive:

  • pre-print (version of the paper before the peer review);
  • post-print (final draft post-refereeing);
  • final version of the paper (PDF) published by the journal (see bookmarks: Current volume, Archives as well as Copyright and fair use).

General Conditions:

  • Authors retain copyright.
  • Authors grant non-exclusive license under the Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - No Derivatives License 4.0 International.
  • Authors’ pre-print on any website.
  • Authors’ post-print and Publisher's version/PDF on authors’ personal website, departmental website, institutional repository, social media websites, open access repositories.
  • Published source must be acknowledged (with the link to the publisher’s PDF version and DOI number if exists).


Notice:

This is an exception to the standard archiving policy of the Publisher – see:



Publisher "Polska Akademia Umiejętności" - RoMEO Publisher ID: 2727. Available online: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/pub/2727/.

Journal "Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science" entry in RoMEO: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1731-6715/.

Journal "Studia Historiae Scientiarum" entry in RoMEO: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/2451-3202/.

 

Journal Indexing and Availability

The journal is currently registered, among others, in the following indexing databases and directories (this list is being gradually expanded):

  • Scopus;
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ);
  • ERIHPLUS European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciencess;
  • Index Copernicus Journal Master List;
  • Google Scholar;
  • BASE Bielefeld Academic Search Engine;
  • EZB – Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek;
  • ROAD: the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources;
  • WorldCat;
  • Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory;
  • EBSCO Discovery Service;
  • The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CEJSH);
  • BazHum;
  • Polska Bibliografia Naukowa;
  • POL-index;
  • INFONA – Portal Komunikacji Naukowej;
  • ARIANTA Polish Scientific and Professional Electronic Journals;
  • Jagiellońska Biblioteka Cyfrowa.



The journal is cataloged and available electronically at university libraries around the world – see for example:



 

Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The journal aims to follow the rules of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding all duties and responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors and readers – see COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the editors

  • Systematically raise journal standards

    Editorial Team is not only privileged but also obliged to systematically improve the standards of the journal, by interacting with members of the Scientific Council, authors, reviewers, readers, and specialized organizations or scientific publishing houses, including Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE), and also STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; European Association of Science Editors (EASE), Editage, Elsevier, Ithenticate. Professional Plagiarism Prevention, etc.;

  • Strict confidentiality, objective impartiality, due thoroughness and kindness

    Editors are requested to treat submissions with strict confidentiality, objective impartiality and due thoroughness.

    In particular, without the written consent of the authors they must not use in their own research the information contained in the submitted (and not yet published) articles.

    Editors are also requested to formulate their critical remarks about the submitted articles in a kindly manner. It is worth pointing out both positive and negative aspects of the articles and trying to show how to eliminate their weak points (for further information on this subject, see Peer Review Process).

    All this is intended to help the authors improve the final text of the articles by refining its editorial and literary form, strengthening its source and factual foundations, as well as deepening the reasoning process, the presented interpretations and the formulated theses.

  • Unacceptable conflict of interests

    Any unacceptable conflict of interests between editor, and author or reviewer is prohibited (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”).

  • Final acceptance or rejection of submitted articles

    Editor-in-chief decides on the final acceptance or rejection of the submitted articles, taking into account the opinions of editors and reviewers (detailed description see Peer Review Process).

  • Counteracting ghostwriting, guest authorship or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as irregularities regarding citations, e.g. plagiarism, self-plagiarism, the Matthew effect and the Matilda effect

    The Editorial Team will categorically oppose all indications of ghostwriting and guest or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as inappropriate practice of quoting sources in accordance with the Matthew effect or the Matilda effect, since they violate elementary ethical principles of the academic community (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”, and Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics).

    Should such misconduct be detected on the author’s part, the Editorial Team will request clarification regarding the misconduct and then undertake appropriate steps based on the COPE Flowcharts; this may ultimately include: notifying authorities in the author’s institution, withdrawing a given article, and preventing the author from publishing new articles in the journal.

  • Editorial expressions of concern, corrections, retractions, and commenting

    Editorial Team:

    a) may publish an “Editorial expression of concern” regarding the published article;

    b) may publish corrections regarding the published article;

    c) may retract the published article if it violated ethical and publishing standards (cf. COPE guidelines);

    d) creates the opportunity for readers to comment on each published article.

    Note:

    Minor corrections, i.e. regarding errors that slightly affect the understanding of the original article, may be made in comments posted by the editors to the online version of the article.

    Major corrections, i.e. regarding errors that significantly affect the understanding of the original article, may be entered through a correction article, fully indexed and linked to the original document.

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the reviewers

  • Privilege of criticizing manuscripts

    Reviewers have the privilege to criticize the submitted manuscripts. This role is both very important and responsible.

  • Strict confidentiality, objective impartiality, due thoroughness and kindness

    Reviewers are required to treat submissions with strict confidentiality, objective impartiality and due thoroughness; in particular, reviewers must not use the information contained in the submitted (and not yet published) articles in their own research without the written consent of the authors.

    Reviewers are also requested to formulate their critical remarks about the submitted articles in a kindly manner. It is worth pointing out both positive and negative aspects of the articles and trying to show how to eliminate their weak points.

    All this is intended to help the authors and the editors improve the final text of the articles by refining its editorial and literary form, strengthening their source and factual foundations, as well as deepening the reasoning process, the presented interpretations and the formulated theses (for further information on this subject, see Peer Review Process).

  • Unacceptable conflict of interests

    Any unacceptable conflict of interests between reviewer, editor and author is prohibited (see below “Additional information about publication ethics”).

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the authors

  • Free of charge for publishing in the journal

    Due to the fact that Studia Historiae Scientiarum is a diamond open access journal, publishing in the journal is free of charge – authors do not pay for submission or article processing. The only exception to this rule is if the author, authorized to a one-time proofreading (after the review phase and after the final version of the text has been established) introduces to the work (in a PDF format) additional changes that exceed 5% of its volume. In such situations the Publisher can request to be reimbursed for the additional costs incurred.

  • Authorship

    Authorship credit should be based solely on the actual contribution to the creation of the submitted manuscript, i.e. the participation in: 1a) study planning, 1b) data acquisition, and 1c) analysis or interpretation of data, 2a) drafting content of the manuscript, 2b) making important revisions, 3) final approval, and 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work (cf. EASE Form for Authors’ Contributions and Conflict of Interest Disclosure).

  • Co-authorship and declaration of co-authors

    In the case of group authorship, individual contributions of each author should be given in the manuscript (both descriptively and in percentage).

    Authors, for example, can formulate the following declaration about their particular contribution to the research:

    “Declaration about the particular contributions to the research: a) study planning: first author (100%); b) data acquisition and analysis or interpretation of data: second author (100%); c) writing the manuscript, making revisions and final approval: first author and second author (100%).”

    This information will be published in the article (see also Author Declaration Form).

  • Changes of authorship or order of authors after submission of manuscript

    Any change of authorship of the manuscript or the order of authors requires: a) providing clear reasons for the change by the corresponding author, and b) the permission of all authors for the change sent individually by email to the Editor-In-Chief.

    If no consensus can be reached among the authors, they must resolve this problem with help of their parent institutions (the author-correspondent coordinates these contacts; the Editorial Team does not participate in this dispute).

    If the change of the authorship or the order of the authors concerns an already published article, the journal will publish information about the correction of the article or the revised article will be published.

  • Contributions and acknowledgements

    The contributions of people who meet at most two of the above-mentioned criteria of authorship should be mentioned in the acknowledgments, but their names should be given only when they agree (cf. EASE Form for Authors’ Contributions and Conflict of Interest Disclosure).

  • Sources of article’s financing

    Authors of articles should inform readers: a) who financed the research and b) whether the funders played any role in researching or publishing the article.

  • Manuscript submitted and Author Declaration Form

    The author, by submitting the manuscript for publication in Studia Historiae Scientiarum, is also obliged to submit an additional statement regarding legal and ethical issues related to the manuscript (see Author Declaration Form).

  • Reviews of submitted manuscript, and corrections of linguistic editors

    The author receives from the Editor-in-Chief (or his deputy or editors of the journal’s sections) peer reviews of the article made by open and secret reviewers, and editorial proofreading made by the Editorial Team.

    The author is obliged to reply to the peer reviews and editorial proofreading.

    Since the aim of the peer reviews and proofreading is constructive criticism of all aspects of the submitted manuscript, which is to help improve its editorial and literary form and strengthen the factual basis and deepen its theses or formulated arguments, the authors are requested to make the best use of the received peer reviews (see Peer Review Process) and editorial proofreading.

Privilegies, tasks and responsibilities of the readers

  • Open, free access

    Due to the fact that Studia Historiae Scientiarumis a diamond open access journal, readers have open, free access to all its publications.

    This also applies to all articles published since the journal’s foundation (1999), when it was called: Prace Komisji Historii Nauki. Polska Akademia Umiejętności or Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności (1999–2007) and Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU (2009–2015) – see Author Index or Thematic Index.
  • Commenting articles by readers

    Readers may post comments to articles. However, the Editorial Team reserves the right to delete any comment whose content violates generally accepted ethical principles.

  • Observance of copyright and citation of publications used in own research

    In the light of well-known bibliometric knowledge (including the so-called St. Matthew effect and the so-called Matilda effect), it is known that many publications that authors use in their own research are not cited in their publications.

    With this in mind, the readers are asked to use all articles published in Studia Historiae Scientiarum (called from 2009 to 2015, Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science, and from 1999 to 2007 Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności / Proceedings of the Commission on the History of Science of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences) in accordance with the copyright and moral law:

    Should any article published in the journal draw the attention of the reader, they are requested to quote this publication in their own publications against sociological pathologies referred to as, among others, the so-called the effect of St. Matthew and the so-called Matilda effect.

Note:

See also below “Additional information about publication ethics” (with the explanation of several important terms), as well as Peer Review Process (including Review Guidelines) and Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics.

 


Additional information about publication ethics

Ghostwriting, guest authorship or honorary authorship, data falsification, data fabrication as well as irregularities regarding citations: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, the Matthew effect and the Matilda effect

Ghostwriting is understood as a situation when a person made a significant contribution to the publication but their role remains concealed, i.e. they are not named either among (a) the authors or (b) in the acknowledgments section of the said publication.

Guest authorship or honorary authorship is understood as a situation when a person is named as an author or a co-author of the publication, but their actual contribution to the publication was next to none or none at all.

Plagiarism is understood as copying someone else’s work or part of it with the attribution of the right to its authorship.

Self-plagiarism is understood as plagiarism of own publication, i.e. re-publication of a previously issued work or part of it without providing information about this fact.

Data falsification is understood as a situation when the author changes or omits research results to support claims, hypotheses, other data, etc.

Data fabrication is understood as a situation when the author constructs, fabricates or invents events, processes, observations or characterizations that did not take place in reality.

Concealing actual sources used to prepare the texts for publication is understood either as:

  • all types of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism (see Zenderowski 2008; Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011; Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Banasiuk 2012);
  • failing to quote the correct publications and quoting instead authors who are more likely to draw attention (according to the Matthew effect or the Matilda effect – see Merton 1968; 1988; 1995; Rossiter 1993; Strevens 2006; Kokowski 2015, pp. 160–161).

 

Conflict of interests

A conflict of interests is understood as a situation in which an author, reviewer or editor (or the institution with which such a person is affiliated) is involved in economic or personal relationships that may have an impact on their scientific judgment.

There are different forms and degrees of the conflict of interests. Some of them are admissible, and some are completely unacceptable because they negatively affect the objectivity of the scientific judgment.

Each case of a conflict of interests will be considered in the light of specialist studies describing good practices in reviewing procedures (see e.g. Elsevier 2017).

 

Promotion and propagation of high ethical standards in science

In order to promote and propagate high ethical standards in science, the Editorial Team recommends becoming familiar with the following studies: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2016a; 2016b; European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018a; 2018b; 2018c; Hames 2016; Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011; STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers 2013; Komisja do spraw etyki w nauce PAN 2012; Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011; Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Banasiuk 2012.

 

Bibliography

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011a: Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20publishers%20FINAL_1_0_0.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011b: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf .

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2011c: Cope’s Guidelines for retracting articles. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2016a: Core Practices. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 2016b: Podstawowe zalecenia. Tłum. Ewa Rozkosz i Sylwia Ufnalska. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20Polish%20flowcharts.pdf.

Elsevier 2017: Ethics in Research & Publication. Factsheet. Conflict of Interest. Available online: https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/92476/ETHICS_COI02.pdf.

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018a: EASE Toolkit for Authors. Available online: http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-authors/.

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018b: EASE Toolkit for Journal Editors. Available online: http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/ease-toolkit-journal-editors/.

European Association of Science Editors (EASE) 2018c: Peer Reviewer Toolkit. Available online: http://www.ease.org.uk/publications/peer-reviewer-toolkit/.

Hames, Irene 2016: Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist. Science Editing 2016/3(1), pp. 36–42. Available online: https://www.e-sciencecentral.org/upload/se/pdf/se-3-1-36.pdf.

Ithenticate. Professional Plagiarism Prevention 2011: White Paper. The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism. Available online: https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf.

Komisja do spraw etyki w nauce PAN (Ethics in Science Commission, PAN) 2012: Kodeks etyki pracownika naukowego [The code of ethics for scientific researchers]. Warsaw: Komisja do spraw etyki w nauce PAN. Available online (29.11.2014): http://www.instytucja.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/Komisja_ds_Etyki_Nauce/dokumenty/Kodeks_etyki_pracownika_naukowego_31.12._2012.pdf.

Merton, Robert K. 1968: The Matthew Effect in Science, Science 159 (3810), pp. 56–63; Robert K. Merton 1910-2003, Garfield Library. Available online (29.11.2014): http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthew1.pdf.

Merton, Robert K. 1988: The Matthew Effect in Science, II. Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. ISIS 79, pp. 606–623; Robert K. Merton 1910–2003, Garfield Library. Available online (29.11.2014): http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/matthewii.pdf.

Merton, Robert K. 1995: The Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect. Social Forces 74(2), pp. 379–424; Robert K. Merton 1910-2003, Garfield Library. Available online (29.11.2014): http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/merton/thomastheorem.pdf.

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego 2011: Rzetelność w badaniach naukowych oraz poszanowanie własności intelektualnej. Warsaw: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. Available online (29.11.2014): http://bbn.uksw.edu.pl/sites/default/files/rzetelnosc_broszura_fin_low.pdf.

Rossiter, Margaret 1993: The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science 23, pp. 325–341. DOI: 10.1177/030631293023002004. Available online: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/030631293023002004.

Sieńczyło-Chlabicz, Joanna; Banasiuk, Joanna 2012: Pojęcie i istota zjawiska autoplagiatu w twórczości naukowej. Państwo i Prawo 3/2012, pp. 6–19. Available online: https://docplayer.pl/5283121-Pojecie-i-istota-zjawiska-autoplagiatu-w-tworczosci-naukowej.html#download_tab_content.

STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers 2013: International Ethical Principles for Scholarly Publication. Available online: https://www.stm-assoc.org/2013_05_21_STM_Ethical_Principles_for_Scholarly_Publication.pdf.

Strevens, Michael 2006: The Role of the Matthew Effect in Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37(2), pp. 159–170; Available online (29.11.2014): http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Matthew.pdf.

Ware, Mark; Mabe, Michael 2015: The STM Report. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Fourth Edition. The Hage, The Netherlands: STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. Available online: https://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf.

Zenderowski, Radosław 2008: Plagiat. Istota – rodzaje – skutki (w odniesieniu do prac pisemnych na studiach wyższych) [Plagiarism: its nature, typology and consequences in written assignments at university studies]; Warsaw: Instytut Politologii Uniwersytet Kard. Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie. Available online (29.11.2014): https://docplayer.pl/2641827-Plagiat-istota-rodzaje-skutki.html#download_tab_content‎.

 

Author Declaration Form

– Download and complete [.pdf], [.doc].

 

Copyright License Agreement Form

– Download and complete [.pdf].

 

Peer Review Form

– Download and complete [.pdf], [.doc].

 

Counteracting erroneous interpretations of bibliometrics

With reference to the tradition of reliable, integrated research in the Science of Science (cf. Kokowski 2015a; 2015b; 2015c; Cook et al. 2009; San Francisco Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA) 2012; Hicks et al.2015; Werner 2015; Wilsdon et al. 2015; Universities UK 2017; Responsible Metrics 2017), the Editorial Team fully supports the current criticism of bibliometrics, mistakenly identified with scientometrics by science administrators around the world.

In particular, the Editorial Team fully shares the view of the 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine that:

“Great research may be published anywhere and in any language. Truly ground-breaking work may be more likely to appear from marginal, dissident or unexpected sources, rather than from a well-established and entrenched mainstream” (Cook et al. 2009, p. 2).

In addition, the Editorial Team advocates the use of the so-called “Responsible metrics” in the assessment of scientific activity and the quality of scientific journals (see Universities UK 2017; Responsible Metrics 2017).

Therefore, the pages of the journal are open to the reliable analyzes of the bibliometric methods in the light of the science of science and the science studies, particularly with regard to the history of science and the history of the exact sciences - cf. About the journal, The scope of the journal.

Bibliography

American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) (with a large group of editors and publishers of scientific journals) 2012: San Francisco DORA Declaration on Research Assessment. Available online: https://sfdora.org; DORA Declaration.

Cook, Hal et al. [total of 74 editors representing 56 leading journals in the history of science, technology and medicine] 2009: Journals under Threat: A Joint Response from History of Science, Technology and Medicine Editors. Medical History 53(1), pp. 1–4. Available online (29.11.2014): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2629173/pdf/medhis5301-00a-01.pdf.

Hicks, Diana; Wouters, Paul; Waltman, Ludo; de Rijcke, Sarah; Rafols, Ismael 2015: Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548), pp. 429–431 (23 April 2015). Available online: http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351.

Ithenticate. Profesional Plagiarism Prevention 2011: White Paper. The Ethics of Self-Plagiarism. Dostęp online: https://www.ithenticate.com/hs-fs/hub/92785/file-5414624-pdf/media/ith-selfplagiarism-whitepaper.pdf.

Kokowski, Michał 2015a: Szkic aktualnej debaty nad naukometrią i bibliometrią w Polsce i zapomniane naukoznawstwo [A sketch on the current debate on scientometrics and bibliometrics versus the forgotten science of science]. Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 117–134. Available online: http://pau.krakow.pl/PKHN-PAU/pkhn-pau-XIV-2015-7.pdf. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.007.5263.

Kokowski, Michał 2015b: Jakiej naukometrii i bibliometrii potrzebujemy w Polsce? [What kind of scientometrics and bibliometrics do we need in Poland?] Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 135–184. Available online: http://pau.krakow.pl/PKHN-PAU/pkhn-pau-XIV-2015-8.pdf. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.008.5264.

Kokowski, Michał 2015c: Bibliografia naukometryczno-bibliometryczno-informetryczna (wybór) [Scientometric, bibliometric and informetric bibliography (Selection)]. Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU XIV (2015), pp. 185–266. Available online: http://pau.krakow.pl/PKHN-PAU/pkhn-pau-XIV-2015-9.pdf. DOI: 10.4467/23921749PKHN_PAU.16.009.5265.

Responsible Metrics 2017: Website promoting ideas of "Responsible Metrics". Available online: https://responsiblemetrics.org.

Universities UK 2017: Metrics in REF2021: advice from the UK Forum for Responsible Research Metrics. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20190312170201/http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/Pages/forum-for-responsible-research-metrics.aspx.

Werner, Reinhard 2015: The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful. Nature 517 (7534), p. 245 (15 January 2015). Available online: http://www.nature.com/news/the-focus-on-bibliometrics-makes-papers-less-useful-1.16706.

Wilsdon, James et al. 2015: The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Wilsdon/publication/279402178_The_Metric_Tide_Report_of_the_Independent_Review_of_the_Role_of_Metrics_in_Research_Assessment_and_Management/links/55a6322e08ae00cf99c9a6f9/The-Metric-Tide-Report-of-the-Independent-Review-of-the-Role-of-Metrics-in-Research-Assessment-and-Management.pdf. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.

 

Thanks to the Reviewers

The Editorial Team of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum would like to express its gratitude to all researchers who reviewed for free all manuscripts submitted to the journal, and, hence, helped in improving the quality of our journal – see “List of Reviewers: SHS 15 (2016)”, “List of Reviewers: SHS 16 (2017)”, and “List of Reviewers: SHS 17 (2018)”.

 

Open Research Data Policy

The journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum encourages Authors to archive research data accompanying the creation of their articles (e.g. tables, graphs, photographs, films, sound recordings, data files, field notes, questionnaires, transcripts etc.) in open research data repositories, e.g. Zenodo (CERN), Repozytorium Otwartych Danych RepOD (CEON, Poland), Repozytorium Open Access Most Wiedzy (Gdańsk University of Technology, Poland).

A list of the open research data repositories can be found in: Directory of Open Access Repositories; Registry of Research Data Repositories; Data Cite and Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe (OpenAIRE).

Authors can cite the research data in their articles. It is necessary to provide a statement regarding the availability of these data sets, including a link to the repository where they were deposited, DOI etc.

For more on this topic, see Pampel et al. 2013; Guy 2013; Stromberg 2013; Griffin 2015; Bednarek-Michalska 2015 (in Polish); 2016 (in Polish); Hoffman-Sommer 2016a (in Polish); 2016b (in Polish); European Commission 2017; Kamińska 2017 (in Polish); Psonka 2017 (in Polish); Barrowman 2018; Open Aire 2018; Hrynaszkiewicz, Simons, Hussain, Goudie 2019.



Bibliography

Barrowman, Nick 2018: Why Data Is Never Raw. On the seductive myth of information free of human judgment. The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Society Summer/Fall 2018. Available online: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20181001_TNA56Barrowman.pdf.

Bednarek-Michalska, Bożena 2015: Repozytoria danych badawczych dla humanistyki. Available online: https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/4939/surowe_dane_humanisci_UW.pdf.

Bednarek-Michalska, Bożena 2016: Open Access w Horyzoncie 2020. Available online:

https://uwolnijnauke.pl/open-access-w-horyzoncie-2020/.

European Commission 2017: Guidelines to the Rules on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Open Access to Research Data in Horizon 2020 ver.3.2. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research & Innovation. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf.

Griffin, R.Elizabeth 2015: When are Old Data New Data? GeoResJ 6, June 2015, pp. 92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.grj.2015.02.004.

Guy, Marieke 2013: The Rise of the Data Journal. Presentation given at IASSIST, Cologne, Germany, Friday 31st May 2013. Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/MariekeGuy/the-rise-of-the-data-journal.

Hoffman-Sommer, Marta 2016a: Otwieranie małych danych badawczych. Forum Akademickie 07-08/2016. Available online: https://prenumeruj.forumakademickie.pl/fa/2016/07-08/otwieranie-malych-danych-badawczych/.

Hoffman-Sommer, Marta 2016b: Otwieranie małych danych badawczych. Platforma Otwartej Nauki.  Interdyscyplinarne Centum Modelowania Matematyczego i Komputerowego. Uniwersytet Warszawski. Available online: http://repo.bg.pw.edu.pl/images/Otwieranie_małych_danych_badawczych.pdf.

Hrynaszkiewicz, Iain; Simons, Natasha; Hussain, Azhar; Goudie, Simon 2019: Developing a research data policy framework for all journals and publishers. Figshare. Preprint. DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.8223365.v1.

Kamińska, Anna Małgorzata 2017: Dobre praktyki publikowania danych badawczych. Biuletyn EBIB 7 (177). Available online: http://open.ebib.pl/ojs/index.php/ebib/article/download/569/752.

Open Aire 2018: Open Research Data the New Norm in H2020. Available online: https://www.openaire.eu/open-research-data-the-new-norm-in-h2020.

Pampel, Heinz; Vierkant, Paul; Scholze, Frank; Bertelmann, Roland; Kindling, Maxi; Klump, Jens; Goebelbecker, Hans-Jürgen; Gundlach, Jens; Schirmbacher, Peter; Dierolf, Uwe 2013: Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry. PLoS ONE 8(11) e78080. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078080. Available online: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078080&type=printable.

Psonka, Tomasz (Elsevier) 2017: Zarządzanie danymi badawczymi. IV Ogólnopolskie Seminarium użytkowników Uczelnianych Baz Wiedzy – Politechnika Warszawska (05 czerwca 2017). Available online: http://repo.bg.pw.edu.pl/images/Zarządzanie_danymi_badawczymi.pdf.

Stromberg, Joseph 2013: The Vast Majority of Raw Data From Old Scientific Studies May Now Be Missing. Available online: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-vast-majority-of-raw-data-from-old-scientific-studies-may-now-be-missing-180948067/.