Publication process

Yellow Point Publications, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org), adopted the following monograph publishing process.

 

  • Familiarizing the publishing house with the submitted text and discussing the course of the publishing process with the author.
  • After the initial approval of the text, the text is sent for opinion to the scientific council of the Publishing House. Proposing the publication by the board of reviewers. This process should take up to 2 weeks.
  • If the text receives a positive opinion, the text and graphic material are discussed with the author (including the rules for obtaining copyrights, etc.) and the typographic vision of the future publication is established.
  • After agreeing the details, the contract is signed with the author.
  • Sending the text and graphic materials to the reviewers (usually two, but this number may be lower or higher depending on the opinion of the scientific council and the editorial office). Due to the small group of specialists in various specializations in archeology, the reviews are open to the public. This means that the name of the author and reviewers is known to all interested parties. The selection of the reviewers is based on the opinions of the Scientific Council of the Publishing House in accordance with the principles of publishing ethics (see COPE – https://publicationethics.org). The period of waiting for reviews is set by the publishing house for 2 months, but due to the mode of scientific and research work (field research, sessions at universities, etc.) of the reviewers, it may be different.
  • Sending the text of the review to the author and the editor.
  • Taking into account the texts of the reviews. The publishing house arranges further proceedings with the author. Usually these are the following situations, but it should be noted that each case is different:
    • Acceptance of the text for publication with minor changes suggested by reviewers and the editor.
    • Acceptance of the text for publication after the author has made major corrections (including substantive) suggested by the reviewers and the editor. In this case, it is necessary to re-review the already corrected text.
    • Resignation from further publishing proceedings – termination of the contract with the publishing house.
  • In the event of a decision to continue the publication with minor changes, the first correction is prepared based on the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.
  • Sending the text to the author to discuss and apply the suggested editorial corrections. At this stage, the editor indicates the changes that the author should introduce in the text. The work of the editor with the author on the text continues depending on the required corrections. At this stage, there are also final corrections regarding graphic materials.
  • Breaking the text and preparing a closed pdf file. This process takes place depending on the size of the text, its complexity and the graphic material placed on it.
  • 2nd correction – sending pdf file / test printout to the author. At this stage, there is no major interference in the text of the publication – only typos and other similar minor errors are confirmed. It usually takes up to 2 weeks.
  • Sending the finished closed file to the printing house.
  • Promotion and distribution of the book.

Principles of reviewing publications

YPP publishing reviews all texts before their publication. The editorial office of the publishing house, in cooperation with the Author and the Scientific Council, appoints reviewers (usually two, but the number may be different). The editorial board asks the authors to suggest the reviewers, but the final decision is made jointly with the scientific council. The purpose of this activity is to make sure that the review is carried out by a specialist in their field.

When selecting the reviewers, the following issues are taken into account:

The reviewer must have experience in research work in a given field.

  • The reviewer should be skilled in his field and known and recognized in the scientific community.
  • If the scientific views of the reviewer are diametrically different from those presented in the work, he should be objective when assessing the submitted work and be able to analyze its reliability and innovation, or inform the editors about a conflict of interest with the author.

Only Polish and foreign researchers with a PhD degree or higher may become reviewers, provided that they meet the above-mentioned conditions.

Reviews of scientific monographs are open reviews, which means that both the reviewers and the author know each other’s names.

When selecting reviewers, the scientific council and the editorial board are guided only by the substantive preparation of reviews for the preparation of reviews; issues such as gender, national origin, nationality, religion or sexual orientation or political opinions are not taken into account.

Reviewers are asked to refer to several issues related to the manuscript, including:

  • Is the submitted manuscript an original text, relevant in a given field of science?
  • Does the text contain current references to similar research currently conducted in each field?
  • Does the text contribute to the development of a given field of study?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the book?

Ethical rules for Reviewers

  • The evaluation of the manuscript should be justified, supported by the Reviewer’s own argumentation. If it is suspected that the Author has committed scientific dishonesty, in particular plagiarism, the Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editor about it.
  • The review should be objective. The personal criticism of the author of the work is considered inappropriate to say the least. All comments of the reviewer should be properly argued.
  • The review should be delivered within the deadline set by the Editorial Board, if it is impossible to prepare a review, the Editorial Board should be immediately notified. The estimated review preparation time should not exceed 2 months.
  • The scientific text under review is a confidential document, which means that the Reviewer may not make it available to other persons, except for persons authorized by the Editor. The reviewer may not use the reviewed work for his personal needs and benefits.
  • Principle of counteracting conflicts of interest – The Reviewer does not review the works if there is a conflict of interest between him and the Author, resulting from cooperation or any other mutual relations with the Authors. The reviewer may not use the text for which a decision not to publish it has been made without the author’s consent.

 

In the event of any irregularities, the publishing house will follow the procedures recommended by COPE. They concern the procedure to be followed in cases of: suspicion of redundant (duplicated) publication; suspicions of plagiarism; suspected data tampering; changes in the list of authors; suspected ghost, guest or courtesy authorship; when the Reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (IC) in the submitted manuscript; when a reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest (KI) in a published article; when the Editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript; as well as suspicions that the Reviewer appropriated the author’s ideas or data.