Focus and Scope

Annual Review of Museum Anthropology (ZWAM) is a periodical which welcomes texts offering in-depth interpretation of museum phenomena . We publish articles, which show museums in broader, also interdisciplinary perspective, written by specialists in ethnography, art, management, law, sociology, history and philosophy. The Journal  initiates anthropological debates about museums as a cultural phenomenon applying methodology used in ethnology and cultural anthropology to explore the subject of museums, their objects and employees. Moreover, we include descriptions and commentaries ( in the form of reviews) about particular cases of good and bad museum practices referring to exhibitions, education projects, conferences and publications. The Journal inspires and fosters effective cooperation of anthropologists of different universities and museums.

Peer Review Process

1. Articles published in the journal “Annual Review of Museum Anthropology” published by the Polish Ethnological Society are reviewed.

2. By submitting the article to the editor, the author agrees to reviewing process.

3.Reviews are made on the form available on the Academic Journals Platform, the so-called double-blind review mode (the reviewing procedure runs in accordance with the principles of confidentiality and is a mutually anonymous).

4. The first - preliminary assessment is made by the editors of the journal within 30 days from the date of submission. The texts pre-approved by the editorial board are transferred to two external reviewers - members of the team of independent reviewers, whose composition is made public once a year, on the editorial page of the magazine. Reviewers assess the text within 30 days.

5. In an instance where one of the reviews is positive and the other is negative, the editorial team have the right to appoint a third reviewer.

6. After hearing the opinion of the reviewers, the editors inform the author within 7 days of the adoption of the text for publication (possibly after introducing necessary amendments to the text) or of rejection of the text.

7. The author has 30 days to make amendments and submit the final version of the text to the editor. Lateness results in postponing the publication of the text to the next issue of the journal or resignation from publication of the text.

8. If the author does not accept the comments of reviewers and editors or when editors disagree with the author's amendments, the author may withdraw the text from publication, while editors may reject publishing of the text.

9. The final decision regarding publication, rejection, or introducing ammendments to the article is in each case made by the editor-in-chief of the magazine. If the editor-in-chief of the magazine is the author, all decisions related to the publication of the text are passed on to the deputy editor-in-chief or a member of the editorial board.

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Scientific Council

Jan Święch (Uniwersytet Jagielloński) - Przewodniczący Rady

Michał Buchowski (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu)

Roman Chmełyk (Muzeum Historyczne we Lwowie)

Amareswar Galla (International Institute for the Inclusive Museum - Kopenhaga)

Barbara Glowczewski (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Paryż)

Lech Mróz (prof. emeritus Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Dalibor Mikulík (Ľubovnianskie múzeum – hrad v Starej Ľubovni)

Jerzy Skrabania (Kölner Hochschule für Katholische Theologie)

Complete List of Reviewers

2014

Michał Buchowski (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu)

Bogusław Nierenberg (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Stanisław Waltoś (Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Zarządzania w Rzeszowie)

Łukasz Gaweł (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Olga Kwiatkowska (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Marii Znamierowskiej-Prüfferowej w Toruniu)

Przemysław Owczarek (Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Łodzi)

2015

Janusz Barański (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Łukasz Gaweł (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Renata Tańczuk (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Katarzyna Orszulak-Dudkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Aleksandra Janus (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Robert Piotrowski (Muzeum Wsi Mazowieckiej w Sierpcu)

2016

Wojciech J. Burszta (SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny w Warszawie)

Bogusław Nierenberg (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Jan Święch (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Anna Wieczorkiewicz (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

 Łukasz Gaweł (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Krystyna Piątkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Tomasz Siemiński (Muzeum Zachodniokaszubskie w Bytowie)

Artur Trapszyc (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Marii Znamierowskiej-Prüfferowej w Toruniu)

Małgorzata Oleszkiewicz (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Seweryna Udzieli w Krakowie)

2017

Janusz Barański (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Grażyna E. Karpińska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Grażyna Prawelska-Skrzypek (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Jan Święch (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Łukasz Gaweł (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Noemi Modnicka (Agencja Qualio. Badania i działania społeczne S.C.)

ks. Jacek Pawlik (Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski)

Renata Tańczuk (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Krzysztof. P. Woźniak (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Barbara Chlebowska (Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Łodzi)

Piotr Czepas (Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Łodzi)

Justyna Górska-Streicher (Muzeum Wsi Radomskiej)

Ewa Jagiełło (Agencja Qualio. Badania i działania społeczne S.C.)

Katarzyna Orszulak-Dudkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Joanna Kurbiel (Muzeum Etnograficzne, Oddział Muzeum Narodowego we Wrocławiu)

2018

Andrzej P. Kowalski (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Jan Święch (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Maciej Ząbek (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Zbigniew Benedyktowicz (Instytutu Sztuki Polskiej Akademii Nauk -
Warszawa)

Inga Kuźma (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Andrzej Lech (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Krzysztof Olechnicki (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Tarzycjusz Buliński (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Marek Grabski (Muzeum Nadwiślański Park Etnograficzny w Wygiełzowie i Zamek Lipowiec)

Monika Kujawska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Agnieszka Przybyła-Dumin (Muzeum Górnośląski Park Etnograficzny w Chorzowie, Akademia
Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej)

Stanisława Trebunia-Staszel (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

2019

Joanna Borucka-Piech (Muzeum Archeologiczne i Etnograficzne w Łodzi)

Jarosław Eichstaedt  (Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi, Muzeum Ziemi Wieluńskiej)

Radosław Janiak (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Zbigniew Jasiewicz (Poznań)

Andrzej Kansy (Mazowiecka Uczelnia Publiczna w Płocku)

Grażyna Ewa Karpińska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Paweł Krzyworzeka (Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego w Warszawie)

Olgierd Ławrynowicz (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Elżbieta Nieroba (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Alicja Piotrowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Jarosław Różański (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie)

Justyna Słomska-Nowak (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Marii Znamierowskiej-Prüfferowej w Toruniu)

Teresa Smolińska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Renata Tańczuk (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Mariola Tymochowicz (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Katarzyna Waszczyńska (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

2020

Janusz Barański (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Nora Baráthová (Spiskie Towarzystwo Historyczne)

Jan Dolák (Uniwersytet Komeńskiego w Bratysławie)

Jarosław Dumanowski (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Łukasz Gaweł (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Marek Grabski (Muzeum Nadwiślański Park Etnograficzny w Wygiełzowie i Zamek Lipowiec)

Alison Hilton (Uniwersytet Georgetown)

Monika Jadzińska (Akademia Sztuk Pięknych w Warszawie)

Eleonora Jedlińska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Katarzyna Kaniowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Aleksandra Krupa-Ławrynowicz (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Inga Kuźma (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Sebastian Latocha (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Cezary Obracht-Prondzyński (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Katarzyna Orszulak-Dudkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Jacek Jan Pawlik (Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie)

Krystyna Piątkowska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Maciej Prarat (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Tomasz Rakowski (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Marta Songin-Mokrzan (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Vladimír Julián Ševc (Muzeum w Keżmarku)

Artur Trapszyc (Muzeum Etnograficzne im. Marii Znamierowskiej-Prüfferowej w Toruniu)

Publication Ethics

The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the journal editor(s), the author, the peer reviewer and the publisher) should become familiar with the standards of ethical behavior used in journals published by the Polish Ethnological Society.

Editorial Board

1)      The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic standards, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

2)      The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

3)      The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

4)      The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should refrain (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Authors

1)       Authorship credit should be based on: substantial contributions to conception or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. In case of a discovered misconduct on the author's part, such as plagiarism, falsifying data or double publication, the journal Editorial Team will call for explanation and then undertake appropriate steps by following the COPE flowcharts. This may eventually include notification of authorities at the author's institution, withdrawal of the article in question and exclusion of any further submissions by the same author from being processed by the journal.

2)       The following authorship problems should be prevented before submitting a paper: “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship”. “Ghostwriting” refers to a case when a person who made substantial contributions to a publication is not credited as an author or, in the case of purely technical support insufficient for authorship, the person is not acknowledged in a publication. “Guest authorship” is the opposite situation, when a person appears in the publication as an author despite insignificant contribution or even absence from the scientific process.

3)      In case of more than one author contributing to the research, individual contributions (substantial, not percentage) of each author must be specified in the manuscript (e.g. “Particular authors’ contribution: DF is responsible for the ideas in the research; BK collected the examples. Both authors participated in drafting the manuscript”; or: “The following declarations about the particular authors’ contributions to the research have been made: concept of the study: first author; data analyses: second author; writing the manuscript: first and second author”). This information will be published in the article.

4)      In accordance with the COPE guidelines, any changes in authorship require written consent of all authors sent individually via direct email to the Editor-in-Chief. Each of them must issue a statement on the acceptance of the proposed changes in the authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. The corresponding author takes responsibility for providing clear reason for the change(s) and should coordinate interaction between the authors and the Editor-in-Chief. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached among the authors, they must contact their parent institution(s) for a final decision; the editors take no responsibility to resolve such disagreements. If a change in authorship pertains to an already published paper, it will be executed by publishing a correction article.

Reviewers

1)      Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

2)      Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

3)      Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review an article, or cannot do on time should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

4)      Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Competing interests

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions. Such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties. These range from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence scientific judgment. Competing interests may exist regardless of whether an individual is aware of it. Financial relationships, such as employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert opinions are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and ones most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and science itself. However, conflicts may occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and political and intellectual passion. If any conflict of interest exists, it is obligatory that each author and reviewer declare it.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Price

The journal is free

Journal History

Annual Review of Museum Anthropology (ZWAM) aspires to initiate debates and serve as a forum for discussion about museums as a cultural phenomenon especially taking into consideration contemporary ethnographic museum sector . The editorial board recognises the need of emphasising the role ethnographic museums can play to popularise anthropological knowledge teaching respect for tradition and, at the same time, openness to change and cultural distinctness. The problems which are addressed by the Journal refer to all areas of museums’ activities – from decisions concerning museum stocks to the issues of assessment and maintenance of objects as well as the ways of popularising collections and restrictions in this field. The Journal was created as a result of arising problems with defining the areas of interest of ethnographic museums, basic questions concerning the existence /nonexistence of folk culture and its expression in the modern world. To provoke a discussion an appeal was made to ethnologists and anthropologists who were asked the following questions: What is a museum and its role? What is the special profile of museum activities and what makes a museum different from other cultural/educational institutions? What is the place of ethnological museums in the museum sector? What are the documentation procedures and ways of building collections in ethnographic museums? How should museums do research and participate in modern trends of cultural ethnology/anthropology? What are the relations between ethnographic museums and academic ethnology?

Finally, the first issue of ZWAM, which came out in 2014, presented 14 answers of authors – both academics and museum curators. Although the appeal and the questionnaire that accompanied it were a one-off initiative,  the questions raised then remains relevant and important both for the editorial board and the authors. In 2016 the third issue of ZWAM was published.