Reviewing process

Manuscripts submitted at „Creatio Fantastica” are subject to three stages of reviewing process.

Indexing and reviewing policies

Section name Indexing Internal review Double-blind review
Compendium ✓ ✓ ✓
Colloquium ✓ ✓ ✗
Concilium ✓ ✓ ✗
Litterrarium ✗ ✓ ✗

Stage I

The first stage is an internal review, verifying the text’s accordance with the journal’s scope as well as its compliance with the editorial guidelines. Already at this stage, the scientific editor may contact the author with initial suggestions regarding the transcript, asking to explain any questions concerning the submitted text, or even to desk reject the text in cases of its incompatibility with the thematic spectrum of “Creatio Fantastica” or its academic standards.

Stage II

In the second stage, the manuscript is sent to at least one external, independent reviewer holding an academic title no lower than that of the author of the text. This stage follows the double-blind review standard so that the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the whole reviewing process.

Basic reviewing rules at “Creatio Fantastica”:

  1. The evaluation of the manuscript is carried out by at least one independent reviewer from outside of the journal’s editorial board.
  2. Reviews are submitted in written form and end with a conclusive argument regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
  3. Reviews are written in a provided review form covering content-related, methodological, argumentative, and stylistic quality of the text with a particular emphasis on its originality, quality of research, and insight in the field.
  4. In case the text has been written in a language other than Polish or English, at least one of the external reviewers is a native speaker affiliated to an institution based outside Poland.
  5. In cases where this is not possible, the reviewer must sign a declaration stating any conflicts of interest between the reviewer and the author. Conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the author(s) and reviewer (a) are in any kind of personal relationship (familial, legal, or conflictual); (b) are in a position of professional hierarchical subjection; (c) have collaborated professionally for at least two years preceding the preparation of the review.
  6. The names of the reviewers for specific issues or publications are not made public. However, once a year the journal makes public a list of collaborating reviewers.

Stage III

The last stage of the review process involves sending the reviews to the author, disregarding whether the answer is positive (accepted for publication), negative (rejected), or conditional (acceptance for publication on condition of fulfilling additional requirements proposed by the reviewer). In the first case, the reviewer’s decision is equivalent to the decision to publish the paper; in the second—to reject the manuscript. In the third case, the author is given the opportunity to introduce the suggested corrections. After receiving a thus updated paper, the journal editors take the final decision regarding its publication.

References

Review form (*pdf.), 2,69MB (form can be edited and digitally signed in free basic version of Adobe Reader).

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, online: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf [accessed: 30.05.2019].