Focus and Scope

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

Section Policies

Table of Contents

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Introducion

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Varia

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Sprawozdania

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Teaching Polish Studies in the context of axiological considerations

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

• Every submitted manuscript is required to go through a peer review process, meaning that manuscripts will be sent to at least two independent Reviewers from outside the institution.
• In case of manuscripts written in a foreign language, at least one of the Reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution different than the nationality of the Author.
• Preferably the journal operates a double-blind peer review process, which means that Authors and Reviewers remain anonymous for the review process.
• In other cases, the Reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is considered to occur between the Reviewer and the Author in the following cases: a) direct personal relations (i.e., kinship, legal ties, conflict); b) professional subordination; c) direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
• The review must be prepared in a written form and end with an unambiguous conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.
• The names of the Reviewers of individual publications/issues are not disclosed; once a year the journal publishes a list of cooperating Reviewers.

Guidelines for reviews:

• Step 1: Initial Editor screening

All research articles in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova undergo a rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymised refereeing by at least two anonymous Reviewers. This process involves several stages, starting with the submission of the article to a journal. In the first stage, the Editor decides whether the journal is appropriate for the article by asking such questions as:

• Did the author follow the journal’s guidelines?
• Is this the right journal for the article?
• Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful?

The editor can reject the article immediately, otherwise it will go to the next stage and to peer review.

• Step 2: First round of peer review

The Editor looks for potential Reviewers who are experts in the field. They will be asked to prepare reviews and recommendations concerning the publication of the manuscript.

• Step 3: Revise and resubmit

The Author may then revise their article based on the Reviewers’ comments by resubmitting it with any or all of the changes introduced. They may be asked to make further corrections. The article may be rejected if the Editor finds the corrections made by the Author inappropriate.

The Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the members of the Editorial Board. If necessary, they consult the relevant members of the International Advisory Board.

The Author is obliged to take a substantive stance on the comments made in the review.

Criteria for rejecting a scientific article in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova are as follows:

• non-compliance with the journal’s profile or thematic scope of the issue;
• exceeding the recommended text volume (30,000 characters, including abstracts and bibliography – see editorial rules for more details);
• failure to comply with editorial guidelines (see more broadly – editorial requirements);
• negative reviews: obtaining two negative reviews results in automatic rejection of the text; in the case of a single negative review, another negative review decides on the rejection of the article; in special cases, the decision to disqualify the text is made by the Editor.

Review Form

Publication Frequency

Vol. 11, October-December 2026
The deadline for submission is September 15, 2025

Vol. 12, October-December 2027
The deadline for submission is September 15, 2026

Open Access Policy

Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova is an open access journal, which means it provides free, common, permanent and fast access to its electronic publications of scientific and educational content. Every network user has the right to read, copy, print, distribute, index, cite and search open resources, including full texts of articles, research reports, conference materials, academic lectures, and books published in the Open Access model. They may use the content without financial, legal and technical restrictions while maintaining copyright.

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

Code of conduct and malpractice policy

 1. DUTIES OF EDITORS

1.1. Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals.

1.2. Editors strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.

1.3. Editors strive to constantly improve their journal.

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

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

1.6. Editors strive to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.13. Editors support initiatives to educate researchers and prospective authors about publication ethics.

1.14. Editors assess the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revise policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct.

1.15. 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.

 

2. RELATIONS WITH READERS

2.1. 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.

2.2.  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.

2.3.  There are no non-peer-reviewed sections in Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova.

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

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

2.6.  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.

 

3. RELATIONS WITH AUTHORS

3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the readership of the journal. No other factors, such as authors' origin, affiliation, academic title or experience play a decisive role in acceptance of manuscripts. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish are not in any way determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

3.2. Editors do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless copyright infringement or plagiarism are identified with the submission.

3.3.  A description of peer review process is published in the code of conduct below, and editors are ready and willing to justify any important deviation from the described processes:

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.

The reviewing procedure and the reviewer file are published on the Journal’s website at https://journals.umcs.pl/en/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess.

3.4. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – 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 Head of the Institute, arkadiusz.baglajewski@mail.umcs.pl.

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

 

4. RELATIONS WITH REVIEWERS

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

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

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

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

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

4.6. 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.

4.7. Editors strive to encourage academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process.

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

4.9. 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.

4.10. Editors cease to use reviewers whose reviews are not of acceptable quality or who do not meet deadlines.

 

5. RELATIONS WITH EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

5.1. 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.

5.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

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

5.5. 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;

5.6.  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.

 

6. RELATIONS WITH JOURNAL OWNERS AND PUBLISHERS

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

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

 

7. QUALITY ASSURANCE

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

 

8. PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL DATA

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

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

 

9. ENCOURAGING ETHICAL RESEARCH

9.1. Editors endeavor 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).

9.2. 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.

9.3. 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.

 

10. DEALING WITH POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT

10.1. 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.

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

10.3. 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.

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

 

11. ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE ACADEMIC RECORD

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

11.2. Editors ensure that published material is securely archived in CEEOL and EBSCO databases as well as on the Journal's secure server.

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

 

12. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

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

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

12.3. 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 Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova.

 

13. ENCOURAGING DEBATE

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

13.2. 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.

13.3.  Studies reporting negative results are not excluded.

 

14. COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

14.1. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova has a clear policy on ensuring that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions. There is no advertising in individual articles.

14.2. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – 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 submissions.

 

15. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This document has been based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Code of Conduct and COPE guidelines for journal editors. These resources are available at https://publicationethics.org.

Tasks of the Editorial Board

In consultation with the International Advisory Board, The Editorial Team develop the main theme of a given issue of the journal. They publish calls for papers on the journal's website and sent them to researchers in Poland and abroad. They also support the Editor-in-Chief in selecting Reviewers and, if necessary, consult the appropriate members of the International Advisory Council. The Editorial Secretary and Language Editors correspond with Authors and Reviewers from abroad and maintain the quality of information published on the journal's website.

Tasks of the International Advisory Board

The Advisory Board of Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, sectio N – Educatio Nova is an advisory and consultative body supporting the Editiorial Board.  Their tasks include:

a) monitoring the scientific quality of the journal;

b) determining, in consultation with the Editorial Board, the scope of research undertaken by the journal (i.e., the main theme of the issue);

c) promoting the journal in their scientific circles;

d) helping in selecting Reviewers.

ISSN: 2451-0491