Humanities and Social Sciences

Historyka Studia Metodologiczne

Content

Historyka Studia Metodologiczne | 2012 | vol. 42 English-German version |

Abstract

The article deals with the appropriation of postcolonial studies to look at Central Europe and Galicia. Beginning with the concept of“internal colonialism“, we follow the evolution of postcolonial theory from a basically economy-based concept into a poststructuralist cultural theory, presenting the development and uses of its central concepts, such as Orientalism or othering. Based on some examples, we also highlight its previous appropriation to Central Europe and the political implications it carries in this region.

Go to article

Abstract

In this article, the imperial idea and civilising missions in the Habsburg Monarchy, mainly of the nineteenth century, are refracted through the prism of the legacy of enlightened absolutism. The article tries to dispel mythologies about its demise around 1800, and about those who could subscribe to its programme throughout the nineteenth century. It questions templates of national history writing which too unanimously connect the Enlightenment to the origins of the various national revivals of the early nineteenth century, and discusses concrete examples of enlightened absolutism’s civilising impulses, among them law, Roman imperial patriotism, and the Catholic religion.

Go to article

Abstract

The article integrates the 18th century vampire discourse with problems and approaches of postcolonial studies on the one hand, and with the Galicia research in historical and cultural studies on the other hand. For this purpose, vampirism and postcolonial studies are defined at first, while the change of the vampirism discourse – passing from the revenant image to the one of bloodsucker – is analysed in the next step. Finally it is shown how the vampire’s character and discourse have been adjusted and narratively transformed in 18th-century travel literature on Galicia

Go to article

Abstract

Stefan Żeromski’s historical novel Popioły [Ashes] (1904) is usually interpreted as a narrative about the Napoleonic wars, particularly about Napoleon’s campaign in Spain. The paper argues that the fast-moving war plot conceals the philosophical question to which Żeromski tried to provide an answer: did the Austrian empire represent a superior way of organizing human society, or was the liberty of the Polish “Sarmatian” republic a more appropriate answer to the question of how to live? The issue is indirectly contested by virtually all characters. It comes to a head in the relationship between two seemingly secondary characters, the Austrian tax collector Hibl and the Polish landowner Nardzewski. The former resembles William Faulkner’s Flem Snopes; the latter, the noble families of the Sartorises defeated in the Civil War. Like in Faulkner’s novels, there is an unmistakable suggestion of gloria victis in Żeromski’s opus. Unlike Faulkner, Żeromski brings to bear the issue of white-on-white colonialism in Europe, and the paper’s author suggests that the eighteenth-century seizure of parts of Poland by Europe’s three continental empires was an instance of European colonialism that delayed the development of non-Germanic Central Europe and eventually brought about twentieth-century European wars.

Go to article

Abstract

The article applies postcolonial approaches to economic discourses in regard to Habsburg Galicia at the turn from the 18th to the 19th century, focusing on the reform discourses of the state bureaucracy, the Galician landlords and the Polish national movement with regard to serfdom and agrarian reform. Making use of Said’s concept of “orientalism”, the article’s main section is dedicated to the analysis of how the definition and construction of peasants as social actors influenced reforms of serfdom until it was finally abolished in course of the revolution of 1848. Here, several different simultaneous narratives, as well as varying positions in the course of time can be observed, where cultural differences were overlapping with social cleavages. Thus, a polycentric, but not polyvalent approach of power and rule could help deconstructing or at least questioning binary dichotomies, in the way that hegemony is always dependent on a complex web of political, social and economic relations in a spatial context.

Go to article

Abstract

The author asks about the applicability of postcolonial criticism to the study of the culture of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Galicia. She presents the voices of Polish and Ukrainian proponents of this method, as well as those who are sceptical about the possibility of adapting it to the analysis of Central European culture. She indicates the factors which complicate transferring the theory of postcolonial studies to the Habsburg monarchy and the peoples living there, and defines the conditions that should be taken into account for the use of postcolonial theory to be persuasive. She presents the benefits of postcolonial criticism as applied to the analysis of literature created in Galicia, noting the hegemonic historiography contained in the literature and the narrative forms establishing the hierarchy of cultures, and protecting the value and superiority of one’s own culture – a phenomenon that has not been investigated.

Go to article

Abstract

This article analyzes the heuristic value of the possible application of postcolonial approaches to nineteenth-century Habsburg Galicia. It critically reviews some contemporary usages of “postcolonial” in Ukrainian historiography, and political and literary criticism. The article finds original postcolonial historical approaches to be of great heuristic value, especially for practitioners of social history. Using “postcolonial” tools, historical research may yield new insights into the history of nineteenth-century Galicia

Go to article

Abstract

Following the 19th-century language debates on the language of science and higher education, this paper follows three Polish texts from the middle of the century dealing with the Galician school and university system. These dispositives of language discourse, defined here as an outcome of the transformations at the nexus of hegemony, linguistic theories and the remainders of the Republic of Letters ideology, are analysed concerning the positioning of the Polish language as confronted with German and Ruthenian/Ukrainian, as well as the political implications resulting from the perceived misbalance. Given the political context of Habsburg neoabsolutism’s hierarchical understanding of languages and its application, the authors deal with both deconstructing the underlying ideology concerning German, and sustain it regarding Ruthenian

Go to article

Abstract

This study follows a postcolonial approach towards Polish and Ruthenian national master narratives in Habsburg Galicia by assuming that Galician historians placed past Polish-Ruthenian relations in a colonial setting and emphasized Ruthenian subalternity. The investigation focuses on one of the most controversial issues in Polish-Ruthenian historiography: the era of Casimir the Great and the incorporation of Red Ruthenia into the Polish Kingdom in the 14th century. The central question is how Galician historians depicted this period in their works and to what extent they interpreted it as the beginning of a hegemonic relationship between Poles and Ruthenians. Which discursive strategies were utilized either to justify a Polish civilizing mission in Red Ruthenia or to refute the necessity of Polish colonial rule in this region?

Go to article

Abstract

This paper offers a postcolonial analysis of Ivan Franko’s attack on the Polish national poet Adam Mickiewicz, published as Ein Dichter des Verrathes (A Poet of Treason) in May 1897. Using Gayatri Spivak’s postcolonial notion of subalternity, Ivan Franko’s essay is interpreted as an opportunity for Ukrainian (subaltern) culture in Galicia to gain its own voice in opposition to Polish cultural dominance. As a result of this strategy, Franko deliberately wrote his essay in German and published it in Vienna, the political centre of the Habsburg Monarchy.

Go to article

Abstract

This paper focuses on Jews as subjects in the struggle for women’s emancipation in Habsburg Galicia from a (post)colonial perspective. The Polish feminist and writer Maria Janion proposed the thesis that Poland should be perceived as a colonizing and colonial country in terms of its eastern neighbours, and also in relation to its Jewish population. She argues that this relationship, after Said’s postcolonial theory, can be also described in gender constructions. Janion’s theoretical construct serves as a prism to examine the relationship between Polish and Jewish women in the associations of women within the women’s movement; the perception of the female Jews from the perspective of Polish feminists; and the Jewish national movement at the beginning of the 20th Century in Austrian Galicia from the women’s historical perspective. Following Janion’s thesis, on the one hand the way Polish feminists acting in Galicia focused Jews in the medial course should be clarified, as should the extent to which growing antisemitism led to changes in the women’s associations. On the other hand, light needs to be shed on the relationship of the Zionists to the Jewish Women’s associations on the basis of discursive inscriptions within the Galician Jewish national press, reflecting the changes in Jewish women’s associations.

Go to article

Abstract

Progress was an ideological concept in the political movements of the 19th century. This article asks how the women’s movements argued withthe concept of progress in a region which had been considered as backward since its establishment as the Habsburg part of partitioned Poland. The analysis focuses on how the political movements in 19th-century Galicia took advantage of the topoi of backwardness and progress, using them as rhetorical elements. Examples are taken from the Ukrainian women’s movement and women’s politics in the Zionist movement.

Go to article

Abstract

The article presents the problem of colonial and postcolonial discourse in relation to Eastern Galicia. It discusses the forms of cultural domination existing throughout history in the region and draws attention to their conscious “playing” by successive rulers of this territory, consequently leading to the formation of memory conflicts.

Go to article

Editorial office

EDITORIAL BOARD

Jakub Basista (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Dipesh Chakrabarty (University of Chicago), Andrzej Chwalba (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Ewa Domańska (Stanford University; Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza), Maciej Dymkowski (SWPS, Wrocław), François Hartog (L'École des hautes études en sciences sociales, L'EHESS), Michał Jaskólski (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Marta Kurkowska-Budzan (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Allan Megill (University of Virginia), Tomasz Pawelec (Uniwersytet Śląski), Jan Pomorski (Uniwersytet Marii Curie Skłodowskiej), Rafał Stobiecki (Uniwersytet Łódzki), Jan Skoczyński (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Piotr Sztompka (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Veronica Tozzi (Universidad de Buenos Aires), Marek Waldenberg (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Wojciech Wrzosek (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza), Anna Ziębińska-Witek (Maria Curie Skłodowska University)

EDITORS IN CHIEF

Maciej Salamon (Pontifical University of John Paul II), Krzysztof Zamorski (Jagiellonian University)

ASSISTANT EDITORS

Jakub Muchowski (Jagiellonian University), Rafał Swakoń (Jagiellonian University)

LANGUAGE CONSULTANTS

Barbara Ratecka, Caroline Stupnicka, Robin Gill

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2012

dr hab. Maciej Bugajewski (UAM), prof. Keely Stauter-Halsted (University of Illinois), dr hab. Violetta Julkowska (UAM), prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Libera (UJ) , prof. dr hab. Andrzej Nowak (UJ), prof. dr hab. Ryszard Nycz (UJ), dr hab. Łukasz Tomasz Sroka (UP), prof. dr hab. Rafał Stobiecki (UŁ), Dr hab. Wiktor Werner, prof. UAM (UAM), dr hab. Mariusz Wołos, prof. UP (UP), prof. Nathan Wood (University of Kansas), dr hab. Anna Ziębińska-Witek (UMCS)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2013

Krzysztof Brzechczyn (Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza), Adam Izbebski (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Barbara Klich-Kluczewska (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Marcin Kula (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Wojciech Piasek (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika), Radosław Poniat (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku), Isabel Röskau-Rydel (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie), Roma Sendyka (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Jarosław Stolicki (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Jan Swianiewicz (Uniwersytet Warszawski), Marek Wilczyński (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie), Piotr Witek (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej), Marek Woźniak (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej), Anna Ziębińska-Witek (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2014

Jan Surman (Herder-Institut, Marburg), Zbigniew Romek (IH PAN), Andrzej Chwalba (UJ), dr hab. prof. UW Michał Kopczyński (UW), dr hab. Maciej Bugajewski (UAM), Marek Woźniak (UMCS), Piotr Witek (UMCS) , Barbara Klich Kluczewska (UJ), Marcin Jarząbek (UJ), Maria Kobielska (UJ)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2015

Sebastian Bernat (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej), Tomasz Falkowski (Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza), Dorota Głowacka (University of King's College), Maciej Jabłoński (Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza), Bartłomiej Krupa (Instytut Badań Literackich PAN), Marcin Kula (Akademia Teatralna im. Aleksandra Zelwerowicza w Warszawie, Uniwersytet Warszawski [emeritus]), Mirosława Kupryjanowicz (Uniwersytet w Białymstoku), Jacek Leociak (Instytut Badań Literackich PAN), Maria Lityńska-Zając (Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN), Anna Muller (University of Michigan), Tomasz Pawelec (Uniwersytet Śląski), Katarzyna Pękacka-Falkowska (Uniwersytet Medyczny w Poznaniu), Wojciech Piasek (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika), Bożena Popiołek (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie), Roma Sendyka (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), Ewelina Szpak (Instytut Historii PAN), Wojciech Tylmann (Uniwersytet Gdański), Justyna Tymieniecka-Suchanek (Uniwersytet Śląski)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2016

Tomasz Błaszczak (Vytautas Magnus University), Krzysztof Buchowski (UwB), Andrzej Buko (UW), Paweł Bukowiec (UJ), Ewa Domańska (UAM/Stanford University), Bartosz Drzewiecki (UP), Mateusz Jerzy Falkowski (New York University), Maciej Fic (UŚ), Piotr Guzowski (UwB), Joanna Janik (UJ), Maciej Janowski (CEU/IH PAN), Dariusz Jarosz (IH PAN), Elisabeth Johann (Austrian Forest Association), Klemens Kaps (Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla), Michał Kara (IAiE PAN), Andrzej Karpiński (UW), Edmund Kizik (UG), Barbara Klassa (UG), Jolanta Kolbuszewska (UŁ), Andrea Komlosy (Universität Wien), Jacek Kowalewski (UWM), Elżbieta Kościk (UWr), Adam Kożuchowski (IH PAN), Eryk Krasucki (USz), Barbara Krysztopa-Czuprynska (UWM), Cezary Kuklo (UwB), Jacek Małczyński (UWr), Konrad Meus (UP), Grzegorz Miernik (UJK), Michael Morys-Twarowski (UJ), Jadwiga Muszyńska (UJK), Jakub Niedźwiedź (UJ), Marcin Pawlak (UMK), Radosław Poniat (UwB), Bożena Popiołek (UP), Tomasz Przerwa (UWr), Rajmund Przybylak (UMK), Andrzej Rachuba (IH PAN), Judyta Rodzińska-Nowak (UJ), Isabel Röskau-Rydel (UP), Stanisław Roszak (UMK), Tomasz Samojlika (IBS PAN), Paweł Sierżęga (URz), Volodymyr Sklokin (Ukrainian Catholic University), Maria Solarska (UAM), Jan Surman (), Aurimas Švedas (Vilnius University), Michał Targowski (UMK), Robert Twardosz (UJ), Justyna Tymieniecka-Suchanek (UŚ), Jacek Wijaczka (UMK), Hubert Wilk (IH PAN), Tomasz Wiślicz (IH PAN), Elena Xoplaki (Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen), Anna Zalewska (UMCS), Marcin Zaremba (UW), Anna Ziębińska-Witek (UMCS), Paweł Żmudzki (UW)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2017

Michał Bilewicz (UW), Anna Brzezińska (UŁ), Michał Choptiany (UMK), Jacek Chrobaczyńcki (UP), Rafał Dobek (UAM), Iwona Janicka (UG), Anna D. Jaroszynska-Kirchmann (Eastern Connecticut State University), Jolanta Kluba (Centrum Historii Zajezdnia), Piotr Koprowski (UG), Jacek Kowalewski (UWM), Wiktoria Kudela (NCN), Aleksandra Leinwand (IH PAN), Gabriela Majewska (UG), Łukasz Mikołajewski (UW), Stephan Moebius (Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz), Tim B. Müller (Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung), Tomasz Pawelec (UŚ), Wioletta Pawlikowska-Butterwick (IH PAN), Wojciech Piasek (UMK), Radosław Poniat (UwB), Zbigniew Romek (IH PAN), Izabela Skórzyńska (UAM), Ewa Solska (UMCS), Rafał Stobiecki (UŁ), Michał Trębacz (UŁ), Jan Swianiewicz (UW), Anna Waśko (UJ), Tomasz Wiślicz (IH PAN), Piotr Witek (UMCS), Joanna Wojdon (UWr), Agata Zysiak (UW)

MANUSCRIPTS REVIEWERS 2018

Magdalena Barbaruk (University of Wrocław), Radosław Bomba (Maria Curie-Sklodowska University), Joana Brites (Universidade de Coimbra), Anna Brzezińska (University of Lodz), Marta Chmiel-Chrzanowska (University of Szczecin), Bernadetta Darska (University of Warmia and Mazury), Paweł Dobrosielski (University of Warsaw), Dariusz Dolański (University of Zielona Gora), Maciej Dymkowski (University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Wrocław), Tomasz Falkowski (Adam Mickiewicz University), Agnieszka Gajewska (Adam Mickiewicz University), Neil Galway (Queen's University Belfast), Ryszard Gryglewski (Jagiellonian University), Maud Guichard-Marneur (Göteborgs Universitet), Mariola Hoszowska (University of Rzeszów), Marcin Jarząbek (Jagiellonian University), Karina Jarzyńska (Jagiellonian University), Violetta Julkowska (Adam Mickiewicz University), Olga Kaczmarek (University of Warsaw), Barbara Klassa (University of Gdansk), Maria Kobielska (Jagiellonian University), Jolanta Kolbuszewska (University of Lodz), Paweł Komorowski (Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences), Jacek Kowalewski (University of Warmia and Mazury), Adam Kożuchowski (Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences), Lenka Krátká (Akademie Věd České Republiky), Cezary Kuklo (UwB), Iwona Kurz (University of Warsaw), Halina Lichocka (Institute for the History of Science, Polish Academy of Sciences), Anita Magowska (Poznan University of Medical Sciences), Paulina Małochleb (Jagiellonian University), Andrea Mariani (Adam Mickiewicz University), Adam Mazurkiewicz (University of Lodz), Lidia Michalska-Bracha (Jan Kochanowski University), Anna Muller (University of Michigan-Dearborn), Monika Napora (Maria Curie-Sklodowska University), Jakub Niedźwiedź (Jagiellonian University), Anna Odrzywolska-Kidawa (Jan Dlugosz University), Magdalena Paciorek (Institute for the History of Science, Polish Academy of Sciences), Tomasz Pawelec (University of Silesia), Joanna Pisulińska (University of Rzeszów), Sławomir Poleszak (Institute for National Remembrance in Lublin), Aleksandra Porada (University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Wrocław), Stanisław Roszak (Nicolaus Copernicus University), Paweł Sierżęga (University of Rzeszów), Kinga Siewior (Jagiellonian University), Izabela Skórzyńska (Adam Mickiewicz University), Dorota Skotarczak (Adam Mickiewicz University), Bogusław Skowronek (Pedagogical University of Cracow), Tomasz Ślepowroński (University of Szczecin), Rafał Stobiecki (University of Lodz), Ksenia Surikova (St-Petersburg State University), Adam Szarszewski (Medical University of Gdańsk), Justyna Tabaszewska (Institute of Literary Research of Polish Academy of Sciences), Paweł Tomczok (University of Silesia), Anna Trojanowska (Institute for the History of Science, Polish Academy of Sciences), Izabela Trzcińska (Jagiellonian University), Marek Tuszewicki (Jagiellonian University), Bożena Urbanek (Institute for the History of Science, Polish Academy of Sciences), Jan Krzysztof Witczak (Adam Mickiewicz University), Tomasz Wiślicz-Iwańczyk (Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences), Joanna Wojdon (University of Wrocław), Marta Zimniak-Hałajko (University of Warsaw)

Contact

e-mail: historyka@uj.edu.pl

Department of History

Jagiellonian University

Golebia 13

31-007 Krakow

Poland

Instructions for authors

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE

The following are the standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in publishing in the Historyka journal: the author, the journal editor and editorial board, the peer reviewers and the publisher.
All the articles submitted for publication in Historyka are peer reviewed for authenticity, ethical issues and usefulness.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Monitoring the ethical standards: Editorial board is monitoring the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.
Fair play: Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.
Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
Confidentiality: The editor and the members of the editorial board must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential while under review. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor and the editorial board in their own research without written consent of authors. Editors always precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Maintain the integrity of the academic record: The editors will guard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable.
Editorial board always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Retractions of the articles: Journals editors will consider retracting a publication if:
- they have a clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication)
- it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.
Notice of the retraction should be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identify the retracted article and state who is retracting the article. Retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Retracted articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal nor from electronic archives but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may cause rejection or retraction of a manuscript or a published article.
Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others they need to be cited or quoted. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable.
Data access retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication of their paper.
Multiple or concurrent publication: Authors should not in general publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship of the manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the report study. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Acknowledgement of sources: The proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work.
Fundamental errors in published works: When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also help authors to improve their manuscript.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
Confidentiality: All manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except those authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.
Disclosure and conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing a paper.


GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

1)    No fees or charges are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal.
2)    Articles to be published in this journal should be sent to historyka@uj.edu.pl.
3)    The editorial office will accept articles no longer than 45 000 characters (including notes and bibliography).
4)    Contributions should be submitted in electronic version (editable).
5)    Author’s name and affiliation should be placed on the left top corner of the front page.
6)    Author is expected to reveal the contribution to the article of third persons (including their affiliation and a measure of their contribution). All authors have to significantly contribute to the research.
7)    All authors are obliged to list all of the references as well as financial support of academic, scientific and other institutions that contributed to the  research which results are presented in the article.
8)    Submissions should include:
a.    an abstract (500 characters);
b.    a short summary (1200 characters);
c.    five keywords;
d.    and a note about the Author (500 characters).
9)    Historyka accepts only original, unpublished contributions.
10)     Editing board underlines that the practice of ghostwriting and guest authorship will be treated as a violation of the principles of best academic practice. All detected cases will be disclosed and brought to the attention of the appropriate institutions.  
11)     Authors will receive one copy of the issue where his contribution is included.



PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

1)    All submissions to Historyka are subjected to peer-review.
2)    Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process.
3)    Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from at least two academic experts in the field.
4)    Publishers and editors make sure that the appointed reviewers have no conflict of interest.
5)    Reviewers are required to offer objective judgments, to point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
6)    The review has a written form and concludes with unequivocal decision concerning submitted article.
7)    The reviewers judge whether or not the submission qualifies for publication, taking into account the following criteria (among others): whether the subject is treated in an innovative manner; whether the article takes into account recent subject literature; whether the methodology is adequate; the article’s impact on the current state of research in the field.
8)    Reviewed articles are treated confidentially (double-blind review process).
9)    The reviews remain confidential.
10)    All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
11)    Once a year in the printed issue of the journal as well as on the website of Historyka the editorial board will publish a list of reviewers collaborating with the journal.



COPYRIGHT AND ACCESS

Historyka is an open access journal with all content available with no charge in full text version. The journal content is available under the licencse CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 


ARCHIVING

In the event the journal is no longer published the electronic backup and access to the journal content will be secured by National Library of Poland, Department of History at Jagiellonian University and Polish Academy of Science.


Open Access policy

Historyka is an open access journal with all content available with no charge in full text version. The journal content is available under the licencse CC BY-NC-SA 4.

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more