Редакционная политика

Концепция журнала

Annales UMCS Sectio N Educatio Nova is particularly interested in:

- combining traditional and present-day theoretical approaches and practical solutions across various levels of education, including university education

- covering issues related to the process of teaching and its organisation in a subject-oriented as well as communication-based perspectives;

- presenting a broad spectrum of changes in teacher training

- illuminating the goals, directions and issues in the educational reform in Poland and abroad

- presenting cutting-edge findings from research in the humanities and social sciences

 

Политика разделов журнала

Table of Contents

Не выбрано Свободная отправка статей Не выбрано Индексируемый Не выбрано Рецензируемый

Introducion

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Не выбрано Индексируемый Не выбрано Рецензируемый

Articles

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Выбрано Рецензируемый

Varia

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Выбрано Рецензируемый

Sprawozdania

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Не выбрано Рецензируемый

Teaching Polish Studies in the context of axiological considerations

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Выбрано Рецензируемый

Readings in contexts

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Выбрано Рецензируемый

In-between cultures

Выбрано Свободная отправка статей Выбрано Индексируемый Выбрано Рецензируемый
 

Процесс рецензирования

  1. Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external referees.
  2. In case of manuscripts written in a foreign language at least one of the referees should be affiliated with an institution abroad other than the country the author originates from.
  3. The preferred way for reviewing the manuscripts is a model of double-blind review, i.e. the identities of the referees and the author(s) are not revealed to each other.
  4. In case when other ways of reviewing are adopted, the referee is obliged to sign a conflict of interests statement; conflict of interests is a situation in which the referee and the author: a) are in direct personal relationship (kinship, legal relationships, continuing disagreement); b) superior-subordinate relationship; c) direct scientific cooperation within the last two years before the referee report is written.
  5. The referee report ought to be written and conclude with a clear statement whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication or rejected.
  6. The identities of the referees concerning given publications/journal issues are not given; once a year a complete list of the names of all referees working for the journal is published.
  7. The referees are appointed by the editor-in-chief in consultation with members of the journal's editorial board. If the need arises, the editor-in-chief consults their opinion with appropriate members of the scientific community.
  8. The author of the manuscript is obliged to respond meritorically to all comments and suggestions listed in a referee report.
  9. Rejection criteria for articles submitted to Annales UMCS Sectio N Educatio Nova:
  • Non-compliance with the journal’s profile (scholarly works in the area of humanities: literature, cultural studies, linguistics, art history) or the thematic scope of the given issue;
  • Exceeding the recommended volume of text (max. 30.000 characters including abstract/summaries and references – for more details, see Editorial Guidelines);
  • Failure to adhere to the adopted editorial rules (see Editorial Guidelines);
  • Negative reviews: Two negative reviews result in automatic rejection of an article. In the case of a single negative review, another negative review results in article rejection; In particular cases the final decision on text rejection is made by the Editorial Board of the journal;
  • Ignoring reviewer’s recommendations.

 

Периодичность издания

Vol.  10, October 2025
We accept texts until September 15, 2024

Vol.  11, October 2026
We accept texts until September 15, 2025

 

Reviewers

  • Andruszczenko Jelena, Charkowski Narodowy Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. G. S. Skoworody
  • Antczak Mariola, Uniwersytet Łódzki
  • Klaudia Bednárová-Gibová, University of Prešov, Słowacja
  • Biedrzycki Krzysztof, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie
  • Bilovesky Vladimir, Uniwersytet Mateja Bela w Bańskiej Bystrzycy, Słowacja
  • Bryzek Renata, Uniwersytet Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach
  • Budrewicz Zofia, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Cimermanová Ivana, Prešovská Univerzita v Prešove, Słowacja
  • Dębski Robert, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie
  • Fiszbak Jolanta, Uniwersytet Łódzki
  • Groenwald Maria, Uniwersytet Gdański
  • Grucza Sambor, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Jakubowska-Ożóg Alicja, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
  • Janus-Sitarz Anna, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie
  • Jaskuła Sylwia, Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Przedsiębiorczości w Łomży
  • Jaroszewska Anna, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Jarząbek Alina, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
  • Jastrzębska-Golonka Danuta, Uniwersytet im. Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy
  • Jesenská Petra, Uniwersytet Mateja Bela w Bańskiej Bystrzycy, Słowacja
  • Jędrzejewski Tomasz, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Kalinowska Ewa, Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Karkut Dorota, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
  • Kita Małgorzata, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach
  • Koc Krzysztof, Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Kołodziej Piotr, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Kopeć Urszula, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
  • Kwas Olena, Państwowy Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. Iwana Franki w Drohobyczu, Ukraina
  • Kwiatkowska-Ratajczak Maria, Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Lazar Jan,  Ostravská Univerzita v Ostravě, Czechy
  • Łazarska Danuta, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Łozowski Przemysław, Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego, Radom
  • Makarewicz Renata, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie
  • Marczewska Marzena,  Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach
  • Marzec-Jóźwicka Magdalena, Katolicki  Uniwersytet Lubelski
  • Michułka Dorota, Uniwersytet Wrocławski
  • Miedviedskaja Jelena, Uniwersytet Państwowy im. A.S. Puszkina w Brześciu, Białoruś
  • Miladi Lidia,  Université Grenoble, Francja
  • Milewski Stanisław, Uniwersytet Gdański
  • Mlekodaj Anna, Podhalańska Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Nowym Targu
  • Mykytenko Natalia,  Państwowy Uniwersytet im. Ivana Franki we Lwowie, Ukraina
  • Niesporek-Szamburska Bernadeta, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach
  • Nocoń Jolanta, Uniwersytet Opolski
  • Ożdżyński Jan, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Pierson Susan, Cabrini College, USA
  • Pild Lea, University of Tartu, Estonia
  • Podemska-Kałuża Anna, Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Pogrebnyak Volodymyr, Poltava National V. G. Korolenko Pedagogical University, Ukraina
  • Pokrivčáková Silvia, Trnavska Univerzita v Trnave, Słowacja
  • Raclavská Jana, Ostravská Univerzita v Ostravě, Czechy
  • Sala Ivan Garcia, Universitat de Barcelona, Hiszpania
  • Sepešiová Michaela, Prešovská Univerzita v Prešove, Słowacja
  • Seweryn Agata, Katolicki  Uniwersytet Lubelski
  • Shmiher Taras,  Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraina
  • Skowronek Bogusław, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Skowronek Katarzyna, Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza w  Krakowie
  • Sporek Paweł, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Sproge Ludmiła, Uniwersytet Łotewski
  • Szczukowski Dariusz, Uniwersytet Gdański
  • Ślósarz Anna,  Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny w Krakowie
  • Tomaszewska Grażyna, Uniwersytet Gdański
  • Ubermann Agnieszka,  Uniwersytet Rzeszowski
  • Wadowski Dariusz, Katolicki  Uniwersytet Lubelski
  • Mirosław Wobalis, Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
  • Wróblewski Maciej, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu
  • Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak Dorota,  Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Żigalova Marija, Białoruski Państwowy Uniwersytet Techniczny w Brześciu, Ukraina

 

Indexing

ERIH+ (European Reference Index for the Humanities)

CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)

ICI Journals Master List Google Scholar BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine)

ARIANTA Bibliotekanauki.pl PBN (Polska Bibliografia Naukowa)

Most Wiedzy

 

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

One of the priorities of the editorial team of Educatio Nova is to publish quality papers. The integrity of the content published is an essential point and should be ensured during the review and the edition processes and when publishing papers. To that purpose, all the actors of an Educatio Nova publication, authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team, are expected to fully adhere to our policy regarding publication ethics and malpractice.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

1. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.

2. Editors have in-house procedures to assure the quality of the material to be published, including plagiarism control for new articles.

3. Editors put freedom of expression as the primary value of each contribution.

4. Editors make sure business needs do not compromise intellectual and ethical standards.

5. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

6. Editors and editorial staff will 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.

7. Editors encourage suggestions of authors, readers, international advisory board members, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes.

8. Editors are aware of research into peer review and publishing and continually reassess their journal’s processes in the light of new findings.

9. Editors strive to ensure appropriate technical resources or guidance from experts (technical designers, statistical experts) needed to maintain high quality of the journal.

10. Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

11. Editors support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct.

12. Editors attempt to ensure that any publication appearing in the journal reflects the message of the reported article and is put in its original context.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

1. Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

2. Editors provide regularly updated guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

3. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4. The journal has a system to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

5. The identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed, a list of reviewers is published once a year for all the articles published in this year.

6. Editors strive to ensure peer review at the journal is s fair, unbiased and timely.

7. Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.

8. Editors have a system to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

9. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions as well as on the originality of submissions, possibility of redundant publication or plagiarism.

10. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.

11. Editors develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and update this on the basis of reviewer performance to make sure it reflects the community for the journal. A wide range of sources beyond personal contacts are used to identify potential new reviewers.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF AUTHORS

1. Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

2. Editors publish submission guidelines detailing what is expected of authors. These guidelines are regularly updated and should refer to this code.

3. A description of peer review process is published in the code of conduct below:

• Each publication is reviewed by at least two external reviewers.

• The submissions are subject to the double blind review process.

• The review is made in a written form with a clear conclusion on acceptance or rejection of the submission.

• Educatio Nova has a mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. The author who wishes to appeal against the reviewing outcome needs to make a clearly justified statement and direct it to the Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Małgorzata Karwatowska, at malgorzata.karwatowska@poczta.umcs.lublin.pl

4. Editor-in-Chief respects requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable.

RELATIONS WITH READERS

1. Readers are informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

2. All publications are reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate), the identity of reviewers of individual articles is not revealed, a list of reviewers is published once a year. Reviewers are competent to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests.

3. There are no non-peer-reviewed sections in Educatio Nova.

4. Editors strive to develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles.

5. The journal adopts authorship system that promotes good practice and discourages misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors).

6. The journal informs readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

RELATIONS WITH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

1. Editors provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

2. Submissions from editorial board members are anonymised and subject to the standard reviewing procedure to ensure unbiased review. The editorial position is not a factor deciding about the acceptance of the article.

3. Editor-in-Chief continually strives to identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal.

4. Editor-in-Chief regularly reviews the composition of the editorial board and provides guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties.

5. The following editorial responsibilities are shared among the members of the editorial board:

• supporting and promoting the journal;

• seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions;

• reviewing submissions to the journal;

6. Editor-in-Chief consults editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge.

RELATIONS WITH JOURNAL OWNERS AND PUBLISHERS

1. The relationship of editors to Journal publishers is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.

2. Editors make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without any interference from the journal owner.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

1. Editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish.

PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL DATA

1. Editors obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction.

2. Editors protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions.

ENCOURAGING ETHICAL RESEARCH (E.G. RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS OR ANIMALS)

1. Editors endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines on ethics (e.g. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222, British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/, American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx).

2. Editors seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

3. Editors request authors' clarification on ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to ensure child student protection) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed.

DEALING WITH POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT

1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them, both in case of published and unpublished papers.

2. Editors do not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct, instead, they are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

3. Editors first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.

4. Editors make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted.

ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ACADEMIC RECORD

1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected immediately at the request of anyone interested in the article (author, reviewer, reader, publisher).

2. Authors of published papers are free to republish the articles elsewhere provided clear reference and link to the original publication is given.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

1. Editors are alert to intellectual property issues and strive to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

2. Editors support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism.

3. Editors are willing to work with the publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) of articles published in Educatio Nova.

ENCOURAGING DEBATE

1. Editors encourage and are willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.

2. Authors of criticised material are given the opportunity to respond. They are asked to produce their response within the period of two weeks. If they decide to do so, both the criticism and the response are published in the same issue, in that order.

3. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Educatio Nova has a clear policy on ensuring that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions. There is no advertising in individual articles.

2. Educatio Nova does not accept sponsored articles for publication. Articles may be submitted by representatives of companies, however, they are subject to the same reviewing procedure and standards as other submissio.

Here

 

Tasks of the Scientific Board

Scientific Board of “Eduactio Nova" is a consulting body of the Editorial Board. Its tasks include:

a) overseeing the level of scientific quality of the journal;

b) determining, in consultation with the Editors, the areas of research undertaken by the journal (the leading theme of the issue);

c) promoting the journal in its scientific environment.

 

Editorial Board

The members of the Editorial Board and the Advisory Board of the journal establish the main topic of each volume. They also prepare calls for papers and publish them on the website of the journal. CFPs may also be sent to individual researchers in Poland and abroad. The members of the Editorial Board identify papers that should be desk rejected, and select reviewers for accepted papers. When necessary, the members of the Board consult the experts from the Advisory Board. Proofreaders correspond with authors and international reviewers, and ensure the high standard of papers published in the journal.