Social Pedagogy: Rules review


  1. The author sends the article to the editorial office by electronic means.
  2. At the beginning, the article is subject to a formal assessment in terms of:
    a. completeness of documents: qestionnaire data, statements
    b. conformity of formatting (formatting template) of the relevant text,
    c. consistency of the article content with the profile of the journal.
  3. If the formal verification of the text is positive, the typescript is submitted to the Editorial Team. If the formal verification of the text is negative, the author is informed electronically.
  4. The Editorial Team, together with the Scientific Editorial Assistant, reads the submitted text and makes a decision on the allocation of two reviewers for each article. This is done according to the following principles:a. Reviewers come from outside the author’s parent entity,
    b. Reviewers are experts in the subject matter discussed in the article,
    c. Reviewers have the post-doctoral degree or PhD degree.
  5. A reviewer who does not feel competent in the subject matter discussed in the article or who is unable to meet the deadline for drawing up a review, shall immediately notify the Editorial Team so that the review can be drawn up in due time by another person.
  6. During the evaluation, the Editorial Team does not disclose any information about the article to anyone other than the author and reviewers.
  7. The text not containing any information indicating a particular author is submitted to selected reviewers, and the author is informed electronically about the fact that the article has been subject to the review procedure.
    1. Author and reviewers do not know their identity (double-blind review process).
  8. The list of reviewers is published in one of the issues of the Quarterly at least once a year.
  9. Each review shall be made in writing using the review form containing, among others, a general opinion/assessment of the article and a reviewer’s motion on whether or not the article should be allowed to be printed in the Quarterly.
  10. The review process takes into account the following criteria:
    – subject of the article (in the profile of the Quarterly),
    – scientific level of the article (referring to generally accepted criteria of discourse in the field of social sciences),
    – originality, scientific innovation, communicativeness and precision of language,
    – convincing documentation of arguments and conclusions in the paradigm of empirical and theoretical methodology.
  11. If the article does not meet these criteria, the Editorial Team may resign from publishing it.
  12. In case of a significant discrepancy between opinions of reviewers, the Editorial Team appoints a third reviewer whose opinion finalizes the article evaluation process.
  13. The author is informed electronically about the decision to publish the article, and in the case of a positive decision – about the planned date of publication of the article.
  14. In case when reviewers indicate the necessity to amend the text before its publication, the Editorial Team shall submit proposals for changes to the author.
  15. In case of a negative decision concerning the publication of an article, the unpublished material shall not be used by the Editorial Team.