The editor responsible for a given scientific discipline decides whether to accept a text for review or reject it. Formal criteria and a preliminary substantive assessment are taken into account. In case of doubt, the editor-in-chief or the entire Editorial Board is consulted during a meeting.
All submitted texts are reviewed in accordance with the double-blind review principle. This means that the author remains anonymous to the reviewers throughout the review process. It is the author’s responsibility to anonymize the manuscript and all related materials. In order to obtain different perspectives, the Editorial Board will ensure that the article is reviewed by two people from different academic or research centers with which the author is not affiliated. The review stage usually does not exceed two months.
The names of authors, affiliations and any other potentially identifying information should be removed from the manuscript text and any accompanying files (such as figures in supplementary materials).
A separate title page should be submitted, containing the title, authors’ names, affiliations and contact details of the corresponding author. Any acknowledgements, disclosures or funding information should also be included on this page.
Authors should avoid citing their own work in a way that could reveal their identity.
The journal also publishes special/guest-edited issues. The review process for these articles is the same as the review process for the journal in general.
In addition, if a guest editor is the author of an article in their issue/collection, they will not be involved in the review process.
Reviews will be forwarded to the author in the form of an anonymous opinion indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the content, together with a request to respond to the reviewers’ recommendations. The text returned by the author to the editorial office after the evaluation stage should take into account the reviewers’ comments and the editorial comments (if any). If the author disagrees with some of the recommendations, they should attach a response to the review of the text. If the reviewer has approved the publication of the text provided that significant corrections are made, the revised manuscript is sent back to the same reviewer together with the author’s written response to his/her opinion(s).
Guidelines for reviewers completing the review form
The reviewer should primarily take into account:
- A substantive assessment, including, among other things, the clarity of the problem formulation, the quality of the literature used, the novelty/originality of the proposed solution to the problem, and the justification for addressing the issue.
- A formal assessment, including, among other things, compliance with the required layout, text structure, linguistic formulation, quality of references and bibliography.
- An empirical and methodological assessment of the description of results and discussion of results.
The reviewer should also clearly assess whether the text should be:
- rejected (giving reasons for this decision),
- re-reviewed after substantial revisions (indicating what needs to be improved; in this case, the text is re-reviewed by the same person),
- accepted after minor revisions (the decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief),
- accepted without revisions.
The names of all EDUKACJA reviewers are published once a year on the journal’s website.
The journal follows the guidelines of the American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual (7th Edition), and authors are encouraged to refer to this publication for style and reference formatting.