Instructions for Authors of „Cultural Studies Appendix”

1. Electronic version of the text (text file in .doc or .docx format) should be sent to the

following address: zalacznikkulturoznawczy@gmail.com

2. We use Times New Roman font, size 12, line spacing 1.5, all margins - 2.5.

3. At the beginning of the text we give:

→ name and surname of the author of the article;

→ affiliation in Polish and English;

→ email address;

→ ORCID number;

→ article title.

4. We write the titles of books, articles, films, theater performances, etc. in italics. We write

magazine titles in simple quotation marks.

5. In the main text, after a given person is mentioned for the first time, we use initials.

6. We write numerals in words, respecting the principle of economics (e.g. „twelve people”,

but „1,865 people”).

7. We place short quotes directly in the text, in quotation marks; longer (more than four lines)

or particularly important ones – in separate paragraphs, with font size 10. We use a gap

between the quote and the main text (at the top and bottom of the quote), in this case we do

not use quotation marks.

8. Remember to use the proper quotation marks (i.e. „abc”, not "abc"); we use „»German«

quotation marks” for internal quotes; omissions are marked with an ellipse in square brackets

[…]; we write the inclusions in square brackets.

9. We write foreign words and phrases in italics.

10. We use emphasis in quotes in moderation. We apply them by using the automatic print

explode function (2.5 points).

11. We use bottom footnotes (font 10 p.) According to the following formula:

→ books: initial, surname, title, translator, city + year of publication, page number.

U. Eco, Confessions of a Young Writer, trans. J. Korpanty, Warsaw 2011, p. 33.

→ chapter in a collective work: initial, surname, chapter title, translator, [in:] title of the

collective work, editor, city + year of publication, page number.

A. Konopacki, Iconography of Pre-Raphaelite Painting. Selected aspects, [in:] Themes,

Traditions and Theories in the Art of the Romantic Era, ed. J. Białostocki, Warsaw 1981, p.

124.

→ journal article: initial, surname, article title, translator, „journal title”, year of publication,

volume, number, page number.

A. Morstin-Popławska, The History of a Certain Illusion. Theories of Kitsch and „The Double

Life of Weronika”, „Kwartalnik Filmowy” 2009, Vol. 17, No. 66, p. 79.

→ In the case of internet sources, we also provide the website address (with the hyperlink

removed) and the date of access:

http // www.gazetawyborcza.pl/ [accessed: 12.07.2018].

The following abbreviations are used in the footnotes: ibid., op. cit., see

12. We attach to the article a bibliography in alphabetical order (according to the names of the

authors), in which we write the full form of the author’s name and the abbreviated name of

the publisher (if applicable). All references from the footnotes should be included in the

bibliography.

13. Illustrative materials are sent in separate files, appropriately numbered (according to the

order in which they appear in the article), with the highest possible resolution.

Additionally, in a separate text file, we send a list of illustrations with the given titles and

sources (in the case of images from the Internet, we also provide the date of access; authors

are obliged to inform the editors about the legal possibility of using the images sent).

In the main text, we indicate the preferred location of the illustration with the highlighted

annotation (fig. 1), (fig. 2), etc.

14. The article should be accompanied (at the end or in a separate file):

→ abstract in English (approx. 3000 characters; the abstract should be impersonal, concern

the general issues of the dissertation, the adopted research methodology and synthetically

present the most important theses).

→ keywords (4-7) in English.

The article will be accepted for publication, if it is approved by the Editorial Board and

Reviewers. These persons may indicate the need to shorten a given text or to introduce

corrections.

Criteria for the Qualification and Rejection of Scientific Articles Submitted to the “Cultural Studies Supplement”

1. General Principles

Every scientific article submitted to the “Cultural Studies Supplement” is subject to an initial assessment by members of the Editorial Board. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the text meets the basic requirements for being sent for external scholarly review.

The Editorial Board’s preliminary decision is based primarily on:

1. the article’s compatibility with the journal’s academic profile;
2. the scientific nature of the text;
3. its potential scholarly value and originality;
4. methodological and argumentative soundness;
5. compliance with publication ethics standards;
6. fulfilment of the journal’s basic formal requirements.

Meeting the formal requirements does not automatically mean that a text will be qualified for review. The decision to send an article to reviewers is based primarily on its scholarly merits and on an assessment of the relevance of its subject matter and character to the concept of the planned issues.

2. Criteria for Initial Editorial Qualification

2.1. Compatibility with the Journal’s Profile

Texts that fall within the broadly understood field of cultural studies and related disciplines and perspectives are eligible for further consideration, including, among others, cultural and religious studies, cultural anthropology, sociology of culture, media studies, literary studies, film studies, theatre studies, audiovisual culture studies, and other interdisciplinary research on culture.

In the case of thematic issues or sections, the degree to which the article corresponds to the subject matter of the relevant section is also taken into account.

Grounds for rejection at the editorial stage: the subject matter of the article falls outside the journal’s profile or does not fit the substantive concept of the issue, and the connection between the subject addressed and cultural studies is marginal.

2.2. Scientific Character of the Article

An article should constitute a scholarly text and, in particular, should:

• formulate an identifiable research problem, research question, or scholarly objective;
• present a specific position, hypothesis, or thesis;
• base its argumentation on an appropriately selected body of material;
• disclose the theoretical and/or methodological perspective adopted, as appropriate to the nature of the research;
• lead to conclusions resulting from the analysis conducted;
• refer to the existing state of research to the extent necessary for the problem addressed.

The following may, in particular, constitute grounds for rejection prior to peer review:

• justified doubts concerning the originality of the text and/or its authorship;
• a purely descriptive, popularising, journalistic, or essayistic character of the text;
• the absence of an identifiable research problem;
• replacing analysis with summaries of works, events, concepts, or the views of other scholars;
• the absence of argumentation sufficient to regard the conclusions as scientifically justified;
• a fundamental inconsistency between the declared objective, the method applied, the material analysed, and the conclusions.

2.3. Originality and Scholarly Value

An article should make a recognisable contribution to existing research. Originality does not necessarily require addressing a completely new topic; it may also consist in:

• a new interpretation of familiar material;
• applying a new theoretical or methodological perspective;
• bringing together phenomena previously analysed separately;
• using new research material;
• revising previous findings;
• developing or challenging an existing scholarly debate.

A lack of recognisable added value in relation to the existing state of research may constitute grounds for rejection, particularly when the article is limited to reproducing widely known findings.

2.4. State of Research and Use of Scholarly Literature

The author should demonstrate familiarity with publications relevant to the problem addressed.

In particular, the following are subject to assessment:

• the appropriateness of the literature cited;
• consideration of key studies;
• the use of the current state of research where justified by the nature of the problem;
• the actual use of the literature in the argumentation, rather than merely citing it;
• a correct distinction between the findings of the article’s author and those of other researchers.

A text should not automatically be disqualified because of individual bibliographic omissions if these can be remedied during the peer-review process.

Substantive grounds for rejecting an article prior to peer review may be ethical or scholarly in nature. For example, these may include a fundamental lack of knowledge of the state of research resulting in the author presenting long-established findings from the literature as new, or building an argument on outdated or arbitrarily selected sources.

2.5. Methodology, Analysis, and Argumentation

An article should maintain coherence between the research problem, research material, research method/perspective, analysis, and conclusions. The research method should be appropriate to the subject of the study.

The following may, among other things, constitute grounds for a negative qualification:

• serious methodological errors;
• conclusions that do not follow from the analysis presented;
• selective use of material solely to confirm a preconceived thesis;
• unjustified generalisations;
• fundamental contradictions in the argumentation;
• a lack of material permitting verification of the reasoning presented;
• unreliable use of the relevant literature.

3. Ethical Standards

Only original texts that have not previously been published in Polish and have not been simultaneously submitted for publication to another journal may be sent for review.

Authors are required to properly identify quotations and borrowings and to respect copyright.

Authors should disclose:

• the actual contribution of all co-authors;
• sources of research funding;
• potential conflicts of interest;
• other information required by the current UKSW ethics policy and policy on the use of artificial intelligence tools.

The following are particularly unacceptable:

• knowingly providing unreliable or non-existent sources;
• plagiarism;
• undisclosed self-plagiarism;
• fabrication or falsification of data, or knowingly providing unreliable or non-existent sources;
• ghostwriting;
• guest/gift authorship;
• citation manipulation;
• copyright infringement;
• other serious violations of the principles of research integrity.

A finding of a serious ethical violation constitutes grounds for rejecting an article regardless of its other scholarly merits.

In cases of suspected ethical violations, the Editorial Board acts in accordance with the current UKSW publication ethics policy.

4. Formal Requirements

The Editorial Board verifies the text’s compliance with the basic requirements for authors, in particular the presence of the required metadata, abstract, keywords, bibliography, and other elements stipulated by the current journal guidelines and the policies of the UKSW Scientific Publishing House.

The recommended length of an article is 20,000–40,000 characters including spaces (including metadata).

Minor technical or editorial shortcomings should not, in themselves, constitute grounds for the substantive rejection of a valuable article. In such cases, the text may be returned to the author for adjustment before the peer-review procedure begins.

Refusal to make the required formal changes or the inability to adapt the text to basic publication standards may result in the termination of the editorial process.

5. Possible Decisions Following the Editorial Board’s Initial Assessment
6. Acceptance of the text for peer review;
7. Return of the text to the author prior to peer review for the purpose of introducing additions, clarifications, or corrections;
8. Editorial rejection without sending the text for peer review. The decision to reject a text at the editorial stage should indicate the principal reason for terminating its consideration.
9. Criteria for the Reviewers’ Assessment of the Article

An article submitted to the double-blind peer-review procedure receives at least two independent reviews.

Reviewers are advised to assess, in particular:

1. the significance and validity of the research problem addressed;
2. the originality of the article and its contribution to existing research, or other particular merits of the text;
3. knowledge and appropriate use of the existing state of research;
4. the adequacy of the theoretical and methodological perspective adopted;
5. the selection and use of the research material;
6. the logic, coherence, and strength of the argumentation;
7. the extent to which the conclusions follow from the analyses conducted;
8. the structure, clarity, and precision of the scholarly argument;
9. the overall scholarly quality of the text and its usefulness to the journal’s readership.

Reviewers should formulate their comments objectively and substantiate their reservations.

7. Review Conclusions

A review may conclude with one of three decisions:

1. Accepted for publication without revisions;
2. Accepted subject to editorial revisions;
3. The article is not suitable for publication.
4. Divergent Reviews

If one review is positive or conditionally positive and the other is negative, the Editorial Board:

• may decide to accept or reject the article, providing a written justification for its decision; or
• may refer the article to a third reviewer.

The final responsibility for the publication decision rests with the Editorial Board.

9. Overriding Principle

The assessment of an article should concern its scholarly quality and formal correctness, integrity, compliance with the journal’s profile, and adherence to applicable publishing policies.

The decision must not be influenced by the author’s academic degree or title, academic position, institutional affiliation, age, nationality, or any other circumstances unrelated to the scholarly value of the submitted text.