Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica
folia archeologica redakcja etyka wydawnicza dla autorów dla recenzentów indeksowanie spis tomów kontakt english version
From 1976, the journal was published under the name „Acta Uniwersitatis Lodziensis. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Humanities and Social Sciences. Folia Archaeologica”. Since 1980, the periodical has been published under the current title. The journal is a yearbook issued by the Institute of Archeology of the University of Lodz. The periodical publishes materials on archaeological research, primarily in Poland and Central Europe. The texts relate both to the results of excavation research and studies on material culture, as well as considerations on research methods and methodology. The chronological range includes all ages that are in the interest of archaeologists – from the beginnings of culture to the present day.
Reporting standards: authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussionof its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism: authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publications: in general, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources: appropriate acknowledgement of the work of others must be given at all times. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
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 reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in the “Acknowledgements” section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author’s list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects: if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: it takes place when the author has a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations whichcould influence his research. This is why all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works: when the discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them in order to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Accountability: 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 record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards (e.g. ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects, publication on vulnerable populations or groups of people), and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Fairness: the editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to the 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.
Confidentiality: 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.
Complaints and appeals: The publishing contacts (whistleblowers) are requested to help the editor to record and document the claim (e.g. data manipulation or fabrication, text recycling, plagiarism, research misconduct). The report should include:
- specific information about the case (who, what, when, where, why),
- in case of plagiarism and text recycling, details should be given about the relevant texts/articles.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues: the editor shall be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider the manuscript) 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.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should also pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Editors encourage readers to send by e-mail their opinions related to the material published. Editors are open to post-publication discussion.
Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.
Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness: any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality: 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.
Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument was previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
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 relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Complaints and appeals: The Publisher is obliged to collect and share with journal editors all complains and appeals against the journal, its staff, editorial board and the Publishing Company itself. The company is also obliged to inform COPE, when there is any violation of Publication Ethics and any other regulations applicable in Lodz University Press.
Text preparation principles
The author’s first name and surname (without scientific degrees/titles, 12 pt. font), affiliation and e-mail address (10 pt. font) in the line below, left justification.
Text in Times New Roman 12 pt. font, 1.5 line spacing.
Title (and sub-heading) of the work in bold, 14 pt., left justification
No indentation between paragraphs
Paragraph indentation – only first line: 1 cm
Margins: all 2.5 cm
Summary in English maximum 2 pages necessarily with the paper’s title translated into English
Keywords (6–10 keywords in English) – 12 pt. font; the words should be given after a colon, separated by a semi-colon
Parts of the paper such as preambles, introductions, subsections, etc., 12 pt. font (without italics) numbered with Roman numerals
The cited references should be collected at the end of each paper under References
The dash is marked by an en dash: – (not a hyphen: – or an em dash: —)
Enumerations should start from dashes or Arabic numerals.
The Oxford (Harvard) referencing style should be used to make reference citations, indicating the literature in the text. The sources should be in brackets, with the name of the author, year of publication and page. If there are more than two authors, only the name of the first (main) author is given with an abbreviation “et al.” For example:
(Buko 1990: 45)
(Horbacz, Lechowicz 1982: 275)
(Górska et al. 1976: 15)
No Latin expressions, such as ibidem and op. cit. should be used. Each publication should be accompanied by the author’s surname. The author’s surname may be omitted if it was already mentioned in the sentences preceding the annotation. E.g. “As Karol Górski (1987: 82) indicates in his work…”
When more than one publication is mentioned, they should be presented in chronological order:
(Kamińska 19668: 80; Kola 1991: 13–21; Kołodziejski 1994: 134)
In the case of citing a number of publications by the same author published in the same year, they should be additionally distinguished by a lower case letter of the alphabet.
(Miłobędzki 1978a: 30–31)
It is important to remember that these alphabetical characters (concerning the same year of publication) should be preserved in References at the end of the article.
The initial of the author’s name is given only in a situation when two authors have the same surname and the publication was published in the same year:
(A. Kowalski 2002: 76)
(B. Kowalski 2002: 168)
Commentary other than references should be in the form of footnotes marked by asterisk(s) “*”, “**”
References should be given in alphabetical order (individual publications are not numbered)
The basic pattern for references: the author’s surname and initial of the name, date of publication, title, place of publication, page numbers
If there is more than one place of publication, there should be an en dash without a space between them, e.g. Kraków–Warszawa–Poznań.
If there is no place of publication, use the abbreviation “n.p.” (no place)
If there is no date of publication, use the abbreviation “n.d.” (no date)
Author or a few authors
Buko A., 1990, Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie do badań, Wrocław
Szymczak J., 1990, Organizacja produkcji i ceny uzbrojenia, [in:] Uzbrojenie w Polsce średniowiecznej 1350–1450, ed. A. Nadolski, Łódź, pp. 208–282.
Mikołajczyk A., 1979, Romantyczne iluzje i ekonomiczna rzeczywistość skarbów monet z XVI–XVIII w. Kilka przykładów środkowopolskich, „Wiadomości Numizmatyczne”, vol. 23, pp. 160–167.
References with regard to publications published in the same year
Modzelewski K., 1980 Organizacja grodowa u progu epoki lokacji, „Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej”, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 329–339.
1980a Między prawem książęcym a władztwem gruntowym. II. Instytucja kasztelanii majątkowych Kościoła w Polsce XII-XIII, „Przegląd Historyczny”, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 449–477.
Joint publication (part of the title instead of the author’s surname, followed by citation as in an independent work, with the initials and surnames of editors)
Historia kultury materialnej…
1978 Historia kultury materialnej Polski w zarysie, ed. W. Hensel, J. Pazdur, vol. 2, Od XIII do XV wieku, ed. A. Rutkowska – Płachcińska, Wrocław.
Unpublished works (like published works, title without italics, place of storing the work in brackets)
Lentowicz Z., 1973 Chroberz. Pałac. Skrócona dokumentacja historyczno–naukowa, Kielce (typescript in the State Archive in Kielce).
We require the following declarations from the authors
- that they are the original authors of the works
- that the article was not posted elsewhere
- that parts of the text taken from other authors or sources are properly marked and described