For Reviewers
Review Process
The editors of the Folia Sociologica journal, together with the Scientific Council and the Editor of the prepared volume, make a preliminary assessment of the submitted materials from the point of view of compliance with the journal's profile and the basic requirements regarding the scientific workshop and substantive level. Works that do not meet the basic conditions for publication are rejected. In addition, the editors indicate that only original papers that have not been previously published in other journals will be published.
Texts qualified for publication are then forwarded to external reviewers who review them based on the review form. External reviewers are persons who are not members of the editorial board of the journal or its Scientific Council, nor are they employed by the entity where the Editor-in-Chief of the journal is affiliated. An external reviewer cannot be a person from the same unit as the Author. Texts are also not sent to persons who are in a conflict of interest with the Author, such as: direct personal relationships, relationships of professional subordination, direct scientific cooperation in the last two years (especially regarding the text being prepared).
The reviewer cannot be the author of the text in the issue for which he is preparing a review.
The works are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double-blind review process). The list of all Reviewers is published once a year on the journal's website. The names of the reviewers of individual publications are not disclosed.
The review has a written form based on the review form and ends with an application for the article to be accepted for publication or for its rejection. All articles submitted for publication are reviewed by two reviewers. After the Editorial Board of the journal receives a review, the author of the submitted paper is informed about its result and necessary corrections. The final selection for printing is made by the Editorial Board of the journal in consultation with the Scientific Council.
ARTICLE REVIEW FORM – Journal FOLIA SOCIOLOGICA
- Does the paper correspond to the journal’s profile?
- Is the paper closely related to the theme of the volume being prepared?
- Does the paper’s title clearly and effectively convey the paper’s content?
- Is the paper organised in a sensible and logical fashion?
- Is the paper technically correct (appropriate references, citation formats, footnotes, figures, tables and general standards of academic writing)?
- May the paper be considered innovative and original with regard to the information it contains?
- Do the theses presented in the paper derive from theoretical considerations and conducted empirical analyses?
- Does the paper require shortening or extension of some of its sections, which would positively affect its reading and informative value?
- Are the references to the literature in the subject matter adequate and justified?
- May the paper be recognised as a scientific study (includes theses, critically develops and summarizes them), or is it more of a research report (mainly presentation of data)?
- Reviewer’s recommendation: Is the paper suitable for publication in the journal’s volume? (Please indicate your choice by putting “x” in the proper row of the right column.)
- Yes, accept it as it is.
- Yes, with minor revisions.
- Yes, with major revisions.
- No, it is not suitable for publication because it:
- does not correspond to the journal’s profile.
- does not correspond to the theme of the volume prepared.
- does not meet formal requirements and standards of academic writing.
- contains methodological errors.
- other reasons (justification below).
If answer III. is chosen, should the modified article be resubmitted to the reviewer?
Please add a brief comment on the article including suggested alterations to the text and issues requiring a deeper study and extension:……………………………..
