About journal

Journal Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae came into existence in 1994. It is edited and published by a committee of distinguished faculty recruited from leading Polish universities, the title owner and publisher is the Faculty of History University of Warsaw and it is based at the University of Warsaw. The journal appears once a year, in winter. It contains articles pertaining to the Middle Ages at its broadest, by scholars spanning the full range of relevant disciplines: historians, archaeologists, art historians, and numismatists, among others.

Our goal is to present to the readers the latest results of research on the history of Europe between the seventh and the fifteenth centuries, open to all work, but with special attention to the region of the Continent situated beyond the eastern and southeastern boundary of the Carolingian Empire. The journal is published in “congressional” languages – English, French, and German – so as to facilitate the widest possible exchange between communities of medievalists active in Poland and East Central Europe with their colleagues worldwide.

Each volume is devoted to a chosen central theme, but care is always taken to include results of current, particularly interesting research, regardless of this thematic arrangement. This is accomplished through a section of articles, titled “Current Research”. A closing section, “Book Notices”, contains short reviews, in each volume, of new books on the medieval period published in Poland and throughout Europe and North America.

Journal accepted in the ERIH PLUS list, it is also indexed in Central and Eastern European Online and EBSCO databases.

The editors do not charge authors of submitted texts any fees for submission, evaluation, processing and publication. Submissions to the journal can be made throughout the year, and no deadlines are set for the submission of papers to individual volumes.

ISSN: 1427-4418 / e-ISSN: 2720-5614

Programme Board

Editors

List of Reviewers

The peer review process for journal publications follows the guidelines put forth by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. It is carried out in accordance with confidentiality rules and ensures the anonymity of both parties. Each peer review is performed by experts in the field which is discussed in the reviewed paper.

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the following rules:
1. The initial evaluation is carried out by the editorial board on the basis of substantive and formal criteria and the author is notified if the manuscript has been submitted for peer review or else, if the board has rejected the manuscript.
2. The manuscript is anonymized and sent to two external reviewers who are not affiliated with the author’s institution or the editorial board.
3. Reviewers are selected by the editor-in-chief working in cooperation with other members of the editorial board.
4. The author is notified of the results of the peer review and of any comments made by the reviewers.
5. If a review includes critical comments and suggestions for necessary changes, the editor-in-chief notifies the author, personally or by proxy of the secretary of the editorial board, and the author either applies the necessary changes, or responds to the objections in case he or she deems them to be unjustified.
6. The final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief, in agreement with other members of the editorial board. In justified cases, the editorial board may appoint additional reviewers.
7. The editorial board reserves the right to propose corrections on the basis of its own judgement or the opinions of reviewers, and the final decision regarding publication is contingent on the author of the manuscript accepting such corrections.
8. When the manuscript is approved for print, it is sent for copyediting and markup by the publishing staff and the secretary of the editorial board.
9. The current list of reviewers working with the editorial board is available on the website of the journal.

Tomasz Jurek (Poznań)
Roman Czaja (Toruń)
Janusz Tandecki (Toruń)
Wiesław Sieradzan (Toruń)
Sławomir Jóźwiak (Toruń)
Marek Derwich (Poznań)
Krzysztof Ożóg (Kraków)
Marek D.Kowalski (Kraków)
Jakub Morawiec (Katowice)
Paweł Kras (Lublin)
Rafał Kubicki (Gdańsk)
Maria Koczerska (Warszawa)
Maria Starnawska (Siedlce)
Marian Dygo (Pułtusk)
Leszek Zygner (Ciechanów)
Udo Arnold (Bonn)
Mathias Thumser (Berlin)
Jürgen Sarnowski (Hamburg)
Klaus Milizer (Kolonia)
Anti Selart (Tartu)
Sergey Polekhov (Moskwa)
Ilgvars Misans (Ryga)
Wim Blockmans (Leida)
Piotr Górecki (Riverside)
Daniel Bagi (Pecz)
Ivan Hlavacek (Praga)
Arnold Angenend (Münster)
Mateusz Goliński (Wrocław)
Aleksander Paroń (Wrocław)
Piotr Roszak (Toruń)
Leszek P. Słupecki (Rzeszów)
Michał Tomaszek (Lublin)

Peer Review Process for Papers Submitted for Publication in the Annual Journal “Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae”

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with the following rules:
1. The initial evaluation is carried out by the editorial board on the basis of substantive and formal criteria and the author is notified if the manuscript has been submitted for peer review or else, if the board has rejected the manuscript.
2. The manuscript is anonymized and sent to two external reviewers who are not affiliated with the author’s institution or the editorial board.
3. Reviewers are selected by the editor-in-chief working in cooperation with other members of the editorial board.
4. The author is notified of the results of the peer review and of any comments made by the reviewers.
5. If a review includes critical comments and suggestions for necessary changes, the editor-in-chief notifies the author, personally or by proxy of the secretary of the editorial board, and the author either applies the necessary changes, or responds to the objections in case he or she deems them to be unjustified.
6. The final decision regarding the publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief, in agreement with other members of the editorial board. In justified cases, the editorial board may appoint additional reviewers.
7. The editorial board reserves the right to propose corrections on the basis of its own judgement or the opinions of reviewers, and the final decision regarding publication is contingent on the author of the manuscript accepting such corrections.
8. When the manuscript is approved for print, it is sent for copyediting and markup by the publishing staff and the secretary of the editorial board.
9. The current list of reviewers working with the editorial board is available on the website of the journal.

Download Peer Review Process in pdf format:>>tutaj<<

Protection policy against “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship”