Information for Authors and Reviewers

Infor­ma­tion for Authors

All mate­rials publi­shed on the pages of our jour­nal will be ava­ila­ble under the open Cre­ati­ve Com­mons licen­ce. Eve­ry author has the right to sha­re the­ir artic­le any­whe­re, giving only the sour­ce of the ori­gi­nal publi­ca­tion or atta­ching the edition’s imprint. Eve­ry scien­ti­fic artic­le publi­shed in the paper ver­sion of the jour­nal can also be publi­shed on our website.

Hone­sty, objec­ti­vi­ty, relia­bi­li­ty, accu­ra­cy, cla­ri­ty of infor­ma­tion given, and all this what makes us scien­ti­sts and rese­ar­chers, and not only aca­de­mics or hob­by­ists, form a set of unw­rit­ten rules guiding the mem­bers of the edi­to­rial team. Our duty is to publish mate­rials regar­dless of per­so­nal con­se­qu­en­ces resul­ting from the envi­ron­men­tal ostra­cism. All readers, mem­bers of the edi­to­rial team, coope­ra­ting indi­vi­du­als and insti­tu­tions, and authors sho­uld be awa­re of this.

Text quali­fied for publication

  1. Ori­gi­nal scien­ti­fic artic­les: explo­ra­to­ry artic­les pre­sen­ting ori­gi­nal rese­arch results of empi­ri­cal, tech­ni­cal, the­ore­ti­cal or ana­ly­ti­cal natu­re (max 60,000 cha­rac­ters, inc­lu­ding spa­ces, min 20,000 characters)
  2. Survey artic­les: a sum­ma­ry of the cur­rent sta­te of know­led­ge, inte­gra­ting and inter­pre­ting the exi­sting rese­arch results, they do not have to con­ta­in ori­gi­nal rese­arch results (the length as above)
  3. Anno­un­ce­ment abo­ut rese­arch results, reports
  4. Review artic­les, pole­mics, reviews
  5. Let­ters to the edi­to­rial team (witho­ut cle­ar guidelines)
  6. Publi­shing infor­ma­tion: anno­un­ce­ments, news
  7. Inte­rviews, reports, reportage

Ple­ase sub­mit texts in the *.doc or *.docx for­mats (we do not accept PDF files), for­mat­ted accor­ding to the guide­li­nes iden­ti­cal to tho­se used in “Cur­rent Anth­ro­po­lo­gy” (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/ca/style).

Ple­ase do not use bol­ding, under­li­ning, expan­ded spa­ces, spa­cing, spe­cial font, etc.

The edi­to­rial team rese­rve the right not to publish texts that do not com­ply with sty­li­stic and edi­to­rial requ­ire­ments. Texts con­ta­ining a lar­ge num­ber of lan­gu­age errors will be sent back witho­ut amend­ments to the author in order for them, or for a spe­cia­li­sed enti­ty, to make the neces­sa­ry corrections.

Edi­tors of the “Indi­ge­na. Prze­szłość and Współ­cze­sność Tubyl­czych Kul­tur Ame­ry­kań­skich” jour­nal make eve­ry effort that the infor­ma­tion publi­shed on its pages are relia­ble and accu­ra­te. It is one of the reasons that they have imple­men­ted ade­qu­ate pro­ce­du­res which aim to pre­vent gho­stw­ri­ting and guest author­ship. Accor­ding to the govern­men­tal publi­ca­tion, defi­ni­tions of the­se terms are as follows:

Gho­stw­ri­ting takes pla­ce when some­one has made a sub­stan­tial con­tri­bu­tion to the publi­ca­tion, witho­ut reve­aling the­ir par­ti­ci­pa­tion as one of the authors or witho­ut men­tio­ning the­ir role in ack­now­ledg­ments in the publication.

Guest author­ship (hono­ra­ry author­ship) takes pla­ce when con­tri­bu­tion of the author is very small or the­re has been no con­tri­bu­tion, and yet they are still men­tio­ned as the autho­r/co-author of the publication.

The­re­fo­re, the edi­tors requ­ire the authors of the publi­ca­tion to disc­lo­se the con­tri­bu­tion of indi­vi­du­al authors in the cre­ation of the publi­ca­tion (inc­lu­ding the­ir affi­lia­tions and con­tri­bu­tions, i.e. infor­ma­tion abo­ut who is the author of the con­cept, the guide­li­nes, the methods, the pro­to­col, etc. used in pre­pa­ra­tion of the publi­ca­tion), with the author sub­mit­ting the manu­script hol­ding the main responsibility.

The edi­to­rial team inform and advi­se that pla­gia­rism, auto­pla­gia­rism, gho­stw­ri­ting and guest author­ship are a sign of scien­ti­fic miscon­duct, and all detec­ted cases will be expo­sed, inc­lu­ding the noti­fi­ca­tion of rele­vant enti­ties (insti­tu­tions employ­ing the authors, scien­ti­fic socie­ties, etc.).

The edi­tors requ­ire for the sub­mit­ted docu­ment to inc­lu­de infor­ma­tion on possi­ble sour­ces of finan­cing of the publi­ca­tion, the con­tri­bu­tion of scien­ti­fic & rese­arch insti­tu­tions, socie­ties and other enti­ties (finan­cial disclosure).

The edi­to­rial team will docu­ment any mani­fe­sta­tions of scien­ti­fic miscon­duct, espe­cial­ly vio­la­tions and bre­aches of prin­ci­ples of scien­ti­fic ethos.

The revie­wing procedure:

  1. The eli­gi­bi­li­ty or rejec­tion cri­te­ria, and a review form, are made public on the journal’s website.
  2. Each scien­ti­fic publi­ca­tion, pre-quali­fied by the edi­to­rial team as prin­ta­ble, is for­war­ded for peer review.
  3. The authors have the right to appo­int up to five poten­tial revie­wers of the­ir paper, but the appo­in­ted per­sons can­not be employ­ed in the same aca­de­mic unit as the author, and they can­not rema­in in the “supe­rior-sub­or­di­na­te” (or “teacher-stu­dent”) rela­tion­ship with the author, or coope­ra­te with them on the level of research.
  4. Authors have the right to appo­int per­sons who are exc­lu­ded from the gro­up of poten­tial revie­wers of the­ir papers.
  5. At least two inde­pen­dent revie­wers out­si­de the aca­de­mic unit affi­lia­ted by the author of the publi­ca­tion shall be appo­in­ted to asses each publication.
  6. The author or authors of the publi­ca­tion and revie­wers do not know each others’ iden­ti­ties (double-blind review process).
  7. Eve­ry scien­ti­fic review shall be made in wri­ting (form here).
  8. At least 50% of revie­wers asses­sing scien­ti­fic publi­ca­tions shall be exter­nal revie­wers, or non-mem­bers of the scien­ti­fic coun­cil of a scien­ti­fic jour­nal, not employ­ed in the journal’s edi­to­rial offi­ce or in the enti­ty whe­re the chief edi­tor of the jour­nal is affiliated.
  9. A writ­ten review shall con­ta­in an expli­cit requ­est of the revie­wer con­cer­ning the con­di­tions of admis­sion of a scien­ti­fic artic­le for publi­ca­tion or its rejection.
  10. Names of the revie­wers of each publi­ca­tions shall not be disclosed.
  11. The final deci­sion to accept the text for prin­ting shall be made by the chief edi­tor in con­sul­ta­tion with the­ir depu­ties (the deci­sion must be made unanimously).

Infor­ma­tion for reviewers

Reviews shall be done in wri­ting. You can either use a conve­nient form from our websi­te:
http://indigena.edu.pl/english-review/

or down­lo­ad and fill in the prin­ta­ble ver­sion which can be found here: http://indigena.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/english-review.docx

If you cho­ose an elec­tro­nic form on the websi­te, each review will have to be con­fir­med by pho­ne or e‑mail. The­re­fo­re, ple­ase give your pre­fer­red con­tact deta­ils in the review. Howe­ver, if you cho­ose a prin­ted ver­sion of the review, you sho­uld fill it in on the com­pu­ter, print it out and send to the fol­lo­wing address: Insty­tut Reli­gio­znaw­stwa, ul. Grodz­ka 52, 31–044 Kra­ków, fol­lo­wed by “Cza­so­pi­smo Indi­ge­na”. Of cour­se, for both our and your conve­nien­ce, we pre­fer the elec­tro­nic version.

Any spe­ci­fic com­ments on the revie­wed artic­le can be made direc­tly on the docu­ment (e.g. “Com­ments” in Word). Such a file can be sent direc­tly to our e‑mail address (kontakt@indigena.edu.pl) or atta­ched to the elec­tro­nic form (the but­ton at the bottom).

Foot­no­tes

Con­si­stent with the sty­le of the “Cur­rent Anth­ro­po­lo­gy” journal.

Abs­tract

Num­ber of cha­rac­ters: 1,200–2,000

Lan­gu­age of the abs­tract: Polish (for Polish-lan­gu­age texts) and English or Spa­nish (fore­ign-lan­gu­age texts do not need to inc­lu­de an abs­tract in Polish).

The abs­tract shall be atta­ched with a title in the same lan­gu­age as the abstract

Key­words: 5 in the abstract’s language

Biblio­gra­phy

Con­si­stent with the sty­le of the “Cur­rent Anth­ro­po­lo­gy” journal.