The Editorial Board of Qualitative Sociology Review is committed to provide the highest ethical standards at every stage of the publishing procedure. Qualitative Sociology Review is a Committee on Publication Ethics member and strictly follows the rules of that organisation. The review process in Qualitative Sociology Review is arranged by double-blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.
Editorial procedure – schedule
Contributions to Qualitative Sociology Review are accepted only via the official address of the Editorial Board email@example.com and the OJS platform.
Immediately upon receiving a new submission, the Secretary of the Editorial Board sends it to the Editor in Chief as well as the other members of the Board. The Editor in Chief entrusts individual members of the Board with the task of a preliminary reading of the submission. The respective members of the Board carry out an initial evaluation of the text and verify that no circumstances colliding with the journal’s ethics (or any other premises making it impossible to accept the text for further procedure) exist.
At a meeting of the Editorial Board, the Editor in Chief and the remaining members of the Board discuss the received articles and decide whether to proceed with the respective submissions or to reject them. Each article accepted for further procedure is assigned two reviewers.
The Secretary is responsible for sending out review requests, collecting the reviews received, as well as informing the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Board about the ongoing progress of the review process.
After all reviews are received, they are read by the Editor in Chief as well as the other members of the Board. In case a submission receives two negative reviews, it is either rejected or a third reviewer is appointed. In case a submission receives one positive and one negative review, a third reviewer is appointed.
The Secretary communicates the reviewers’ suggestions to the author; after a corrected version of the text is received, the Editor in Chief and the remaining members of the Board decide whether the author has implemented the reviewers’ recommendations in a satisfactory way.
The Secretary collects the accepted definitive versions of the submissions and prepares the final table of contents; after the entire issue has been accepted for publication by the Editor in Chief, the Secretary delivers it to the publisher.
After the printed version of the volume is published, the Editor in Chief and the Secretary ensure that the new issue is added to the relevant online repositories and directories in due time.
The following policy was created in accordance with COPE standards.
Policies and Guidelines for Authors
- Authors submitting results of their original research in Qualitative Sociology Review should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance in the field of sociology. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Sufficient detail and references are necessary to verify and replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
- Qualitative Sociology Review publishes exclusively original research results. Authors should therefore ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
- Manuscripts describing essentially the same or redundant research in more than one journal or primary publication generally should not be published. Parallel submission of the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour, and it will not be accepted in Qualitative Sociology Review.
- The work of others must be always properly acknowledged. Authors should also cite the sources that have been influential in creating the reported work.
- It is requested to limit the authorship only to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author must ensure that all contributors are listed as co-authors (according to the above definition) and that no inappropriate names are included in the submitted authors list. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
- All co-authors should approve the final version of the paper and agree to its submission for publication in theQualitative Sociology Review.
- The financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation on the part of all of the co-authors should be made known in the manuscript submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review. All sources of financial support for the project should also be disclosed.
- When the authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obligated to promptly notify theQualitative Sociology Review editorial team and collaborate with the editors and publisher to retract the paper or to issue an appropriate erratum.
- Publishing the photographic image of people performing public functions who are not widely known and who were not presented against the background of the landscape or immortalized among other people during a public event requires obtaining their consent for the dissemination of the image and the processing of personal data (GPRD – obligation to provide information about personal data protection).
- To publish the research that contains personal data (including surveys and social media) inQualitative Sociology Review, the authors must obtain approval and a positive opinion from the institutional audit commission operating at the University of Lodz as a form of supervision in order to establish ethical standards and suggested forms (e.g., in the context of sensitive questions).
- The authors must disclose if the work submitted to the Qualitative Sociology Review involved chemicals and procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.
- In the case of conducting research on animals, the consent of the ethical committee should be provided along with the research material and the consent of the relevant unit of the University of Lodz should be obtained.
- In the case of medical research that involves the collection of biological material from humans (as well as research that interferes with the human psyche), it is necessary for the research to be reviewed by the Research Bioethics Committee of the University of Lodz and to receive a positive opinion in this respect. Consent to participate in an experimental study is required (form). In the case of researchers affiliated with other institutions and universities, the consent of the same committee is required (author's declaration).
- The authors may be requested to share the research data and should be prepared to provide access to unprocessed research results, including for a period after the article is published.
Policies and Guidelines for Editors
Editorial Team of Qualitative Sociology Review
- The editor ofQualitative Sociology Review is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, they may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial team as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
- When making publication decisions the editors may confer with each other or with the reviewers.
- The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, errata and apologies when needed.
- The editor Qualitative Sociology Review should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
- Any information about a manuscript under consideration is confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial team members, as appropriate.
- The editors cannot use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the authors.
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
- The editors of theQualitative Sociology Review should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
- The editors should withdraw from the editorial process for the manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the submitted research; i.e. they should ask co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial team to replace them in reviewing the submission.
- The advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue should not have any impact or influence on editorial decisions.
- Those who submit complaints and appeals (whistleblowers) are kindly requested to help the editors ofQualitative Sociology Review to record and document the claim (e.g. data manipulation or fabrication, text recycling, plagiarism, research misconduct). The report should include:
– specific information about the case (who, what, when, where, why),
– in case of plagiarism and text recycling, details should be given about the relevant texts/articles.
- The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints about both the submitted manuscript and published paper have been presented. When considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern and corrections pertaining to articles that have been published inQualitative Sociology Review the editors will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles.
- The editors should guard the integrity of the content published in theQualitative Sociology Review by issuing corrections and retractions when needed.
- If competing interests of any of the contributors are revealed after publication, the editors should ensure that relevant information will be disclosed and issue erratum. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
- The editors should investigate and pursue suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct as well as reviewer and editorial misconduct.
- The editor is obliged to inform other members of the editorial team about any ethical concerns with the submitted manuscripts (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the protection of image, personal data, patient’s or animal rights). In such a situation, the editor is obliged to ask the author to provide relevant certificates and documents. When the answer is satisfactory, the publishing process could be resumed, in the absence of clarification or in case of any objections – the review of the manuscript should be suspended, and the misconduct – reported to COPE and/or persons responsible for supervision over the research in the appropriate institution. If the matter has not been clarified after 3 to 6 months, it should be reported to other authorities (i.e. medical research register, ethics committee, disciplinary spokesman of the university where the author is affiliated).
- Editorial team members who are authors and/or co-authors of a scientific article submitted for publication are excluded from the process of its internal and external review.
Policies and Guidelines for Reviewers
The peer review process Qualitative Sociology Review is arranged by a double-blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.
- The reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
- If the researchers invited to peer review the manuscript feel unqualified or know that its timely review will be impossible, they should immediately notify theQualitative Sociology Review editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
- The referees are kindly requested to treat any manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editors of Qualitative Sociology Review.
- The review process should be conducted with objectivity. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. The opinions and recommendations should be expressed clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
- The reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by a suitable citation.
- The reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
- The reviewers should refuse to evaluate the manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
- The reviewers are obliged to inform the editorial team Qualitative Sociology Review about any ethical concerns with the submitted manuscripts (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the protection of image, personal data, patient or animal rights). In such a situation, the editorial team is obliged to ask the authors to provide relevant certificates and documents. When the answer is satisfactory, the publishing process could be resumed, in the absence of clarification or in case of any objections – the review of the manuscript should be suspended, and the misconduct – reported to COPE and/or persons responsible for supervision over the research in the appropriate institution. If the matter has not been clarified after 3 to 6 months, it should be reported to other authorities (i.e. medical research register, ethics committee, disciplinary spokesman of the university where the authors are affiliated).
Policies and Guidelines for the Publisher
Lodz University Press is obliged to collect and share with the editors all complaints and appeals received against the Qualitative Sociology Review, its staff and the editorial team or the publisher itself. The publisher is also obliged to inform COPE when there is any violation of Publication Ethics or any other ethical policies followed by the University of Lodz.