Wersja polska nglish version
Logo Studia Socjologiczne
Logo PAN Logo UW

Reviewer Guidelines

The whole review process carried out through the Editorial System platform is double-blind, i.e. the identities of authors as well as other reviewers are unknown to a reviewer and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

In „Studia Socjologiczne”, the reviews are expert opinions. We expect to receive well-grounded argumentation concerning reviewed manuscripts, which would allow authors to introduce proposed changes or understand why their manuscript is not recommended for publication.

Below we outline a number of questions that can be helpful in preparing a review. We do not expect the reviewers to answer them all, they are simply reference points that can facilitate identifying which elements of an article require revisions. We also encourage reviewers to consult “Information for Authors” tab, particularly the “Reviews and acceptance” section.

Each review should contain a conclusion that qualifies the article into one of the following four categories:

  1. Accept (without revision or with minor technical and editing corrections).
  2. Accept subject to revision (a minor revision as suggested by the reviewer).
  3. Revise and resubmit for review (a major, substantial revision as suggested by the reviewer).
  4. Reject.

Apart from the main review, reviewers can attach a separate file with detailed comments, including manuscript file with comments and suggestions provided in track-changes format. Reviewers should make sure that the identification of their identity cannot be made via these files, which can be ensured through deleting all personal details from the file properties.

Article’s Content

Is the article original and does it fit with the profile of our journal? Do authors demonstrate an adequate and up-to-date knowledge of the issue addressed? Do they cite state-of-the art research literature/theoretical concepts (is it reflected in bibliography) and do these find relevant application in the manuscript? Are the empirical data satisfactory? Are the conclusions well linked to the presented argumentation? Do the findings contribute something new? Is the article’s contribution clearly demonstrated?

Structure and Argumentation

Does the abstract faithfully reflect the manuscript’s subject matter, argumentation line and conclusions? Is the manuscript adequately structured? Are the theses/arguments presented coherently and in a logical order? Are there any deficiencies in argumentation? Are literature and data references well documented, do they correspond to the research questions? Is the article’s argumentation structure clearly presented in the introductory part?

Tables, Charts and Graphic Files

Are their form and content adequate? Are they necessary from the perspective of the addressed issue and the argumentation? Are they creating redundancies/repetitions with regard to the textual content of the article? Will they be legible in print and online versions (excess of information; erroneous use of grayscale)?


Is the language used in the article correct? Is it clear? Does is contain jargon expressions or is characterized by an artificial complexity of academic language? Is the grammar and style correct? We encourage the reviewers to indicate these language deficiencies as well and to suggest changes, whenever possible.

Numer bieżący

Studia Socjologiczne nr 4/2020 (239)