W. SZAFER INSTITUTE OF BOTANY - POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - KRAKÓW
International Journal of Palaeobotany and Palynology
ISSN: 2082-0259 (electronic version);
ISSN: 0001-6594 (printed version)
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.825
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.667
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2015: 1.267
The current score according to the statement of the Ministry
of Science and Higher Education is 14 points for the authors
The original (the reference) version of the
Acta Palaeobotanica is the electronic edition
The DATABASE of the
available articles of all of the journals
All articles submitted to Acta Palaeobotanica undergo review. The review procedure follows Ministry of Science and Higher Education guidelines
1. The review consists of two stages: an internal review by subject editors and an external review by two independent reviewers chosen from outside the institution(s) represented by the author(s) of the article.
2. The reviewers are competent in the subjects covered by the article or in the field of science to which the article refers. The reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief. At least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution in a country other than that of the author. The editors ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between any of the reviewers and the author(s). The authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
3. The outcome of the review will be put in written form. The reviewers will be asked to fill out a questionnaire also. The review includes a clear conclusion as to whether the article should be published or rejected.
4. Two positive reviews by external reviewers determine acceptance of an article for publication, and two negative ones determine rejection. If the two reviews reach opposing conclusions a third reviewer is appointed, and his/her assessment is decisive.
5. After review, the author(s) will be informed of the results of the evaluation. When an article is deemed to require changes, the author(s) will have an opportunity to improve it according to the reviewers’ suggestions.
6. The author(s) are required to make the necessary corrections indicated by the reviewers. In case of disagreement with the reviewers, the author(s) should submit a written reply to the reviewers’ comments. The Editor-in-Chief will consider whether the author(s) have justified their disagreement with the corrections suggested by the reviewer.
7. At the request of the reviewer, the corrections that the author(s) have made may be reviewed again.
8. Once a year a list of the reviewers from the calendar year is published on the journal webpage and in a printed issue of the journal.
|Questionnaire for referees: PDF, DOC
Published and distributed by:
W. Szafer Institute of Botany - Polish Academy of Sciences