Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Journal of Folklore and Popular Culture. Literatura Ludowa is the quarterly double-blind peer reviewed Open Access academic journal published by The Polish Ethnological Society.

Intended to be both international in its scope and interdisciplinary in approach, the Journal provides a forum for wide-ranging, in-depth discussion on historical and contemporary forms of folklore as well as popular and vernacular culture. Our aim is to publish original papers in folklore research, cultural anthropology, culture studies and related fields concerning language, literature, religion, history, performance, communication and new media.

Journal of Folklore and Popular Culture. Literatura Ludowa welcomes contributions featuring theoretical analyses and case studies as well as articles addressing the ethnographical findings and fieldwork experience or reviews of new publications in the field.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process


1. Articles published in the journal “Literatura Ludowa” 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.


REVIEW REPORT pobierz

 

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.

 

List of Reviewers

2018:

Justyna Bajda (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Jerzy Bartmiński (Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk)

Artur Blaim (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Bogusław Bednarek (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Michał Błażejewski (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Clare Bradford (Deakin University, Melbourne)

Anna Brzozowska-Krajka (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

Zofia Budrewicz (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny)

Urszula Chęcińska (Uniwersytet Szczeciński)

Nina Christensen (Aarhus Universitet, Denmark)

Piotr Grochowski (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Ewa Grzęda (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Janina Hajduk-Nijakowska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Ewa Ihnatowicz (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Irena Jokiel (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Katarzyna Kaczor (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Winfred Kaminski (TH Koeln)

Grażyna Karpińska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Krystyna Kossakowska-Jarosz (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Weronika Kostecka (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Mariusz Kraska (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Violetta Krawczyk-Wasilewska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Maria Kwiatkowska-Ratajczak (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu)

Grażyna Lasoń-Kochańska (Akademia Pomorska w Słupsku)

Małgorzata Łoboz (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Marzena Marczewska (Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach)

Mariusz Marszalski (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Alicja Mazan-Mazurkiewicz (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Adam Mazurkiewicz (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

Beata Obsulewicz-Niewińska (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II)

Bożena Olszewska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Maria Ostasz (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie)

Ewa Owczarz (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Ewa Paczoska (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Dorota Rembiszewska (Instytut Slawistyki Polskiej Akademii Nauk)

Iwona Rzepnikowska (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Katarzyna Slany (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie)

Katarzyna Smyk (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

Wojciech Soliński (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

John Stephens (Macquarie University)

Joanna Szadura (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

Jerzy Wasilewski (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Dobrosława Wężowicz-Ziółkowska (Uniwersytet Śląski)

Michał Wolski (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Anna Woźniak (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II)

Marta Wójcicka (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej)

Małgorzata Wójcik-Dudek (Uniwersytet Śląski)

Krzysztof Wrocławski (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Bogusław Wyderka (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Zbigniew Libera (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

 

2017:

Jan Adamowski (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Rafał Augustyn (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Jerzy Biniewicz (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Michał Błażejewski (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Sławomir Bobowski (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Dariusz Brzostek (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Urszula Chęcińska (Uniwersytet Szczeciński)

Anna Brzozowska-Krajka (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Piotr Grochowski (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Ireneusz Guszpit (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Ewa Hoffmann-Piotrowska (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Maria Jakitowicz (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Katarzyna Kaczor (Uniwersytet Gdański)

Tomasz Kalniuk (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Jacek Kolbuszewski (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Ewa Kosowska (Uniwersytet Śląski)

Wiesław Krajka (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Marek Lis (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Katarzyna Łeńska-Bąk (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Małgorzata Łoboz (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Izabella Malej (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Adam Mazurkiewicz (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Dorota Michułka (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Aleksandra Mochocka (Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego)

Bożena Olszewska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Grzegorz Pełczyński (Uniwersytet Szczeciński)

Leszek Pułka (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Iwona Rzepnikowska (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Katarzyna Wądolny-Tatar (Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie)

Marta Wójcicka (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Małgorzata Wójcik-Dudek (Uniwersytet Śląski)

Krystyna Zabawa (Uniwersytet Jagielloński)

Andrzej Zawada (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Magdalena Zowczak (Uniwersytet Warszawski)

Tadeusz Żabski (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

 

2016:

Jan Adamowski (Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie)

Stefan Bednarek (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Ewa Grzęda (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Iwona Kabzińska (Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN)

Eugeniusz Kłosek (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Violetta Krawczyk-Wasilewska (Uniwersytet Łódzki)

Bożena Olszewska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Grzegorz Pełczyński (Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu)

Franciszek Rosiński (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

Iwona Rzepnikowska (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

Teresa Smolińska (Uniwersytet Opolski)

Włodzimierz Wysoczański (Uniwersytet Wrocławski)

 

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.



Partnerzy platformy czasopism