Peer Review Process
1. Author submits an article as an attached file via email to the Editorial Office of the Polish Journal of Social Rehabilitation.
2. The article’s author receives confirmation of submission by email as well as later updates concerning the ongoing review procedure.
3. The submitted article is assessed in-house to ensure that the title, summary and key words are provided both in English and Polish, that their meanings are congruent, and that the article is in accordance with the editorial requirements.
4. The members of the reviewing team are listed in the Journal at least once a year. The team enlists scientists with a minimum of a postdoctoral degree, and a reviewer assigned to an article cannot come from a scientific center represented by the author. The reviewer may not be a member of scientific council of the Journal.
5. If the article successfully passes the preliminary stage it is forwarded to the reviewing team for external, blind review – the author and the reviewers do not know each other’s identity (double – blind review process).
6. Every review is prepared in writing using the ‘review form‘. The review contains the reviewer’s assessment/opinion of the reviewed article and a recommendation to reject or to publish the article in Polish Journal of Social Rehabilitation.
7. The reviewer considers: - images whether the subject of the article fits the context of the Journal’s profile,
- images if the scientific standard of the article corresponds with the generally accepted criteria of discourse within the discipline of social sciences,
- images if the paper is original, revelatory and written in precise and clear language,
- images if the arguments and conclusions are documented and embedded in the paradigm of empirical and theoretical social science’s methodology.
8. If the article does not meet the above criteria, the editors may not accept it for publication.
9. At the end of the review process, the author of a submitted article is informed by email as to the the result and, if accepted, the estimated date of publication of their work.
10. In case of one positive and one negative review, the editorial shall direct the article to a third reviewer.
11. The author is obligated to formulate a written "Answers to the review", which determines whether and to what extent he or she adapted to the comments from the reviewer or present arguments for not adhering to them.