For reviewers
Thank you for volunteering to maintain the high quality of the publications in Social Review. Reviewers have a key role in the publication process. To protect reviewers’ anonymity, we say thanks for your work by providing only a cumulative list of our independent reviewers at https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/szocialisszemle/about/Reviewers
Review process
The journal operates a two-level review process. First, he editorial board reviews the submissions: then they may decide to continue with a peer review process, request a thorough revision and resubmission by the author(s) or reject the manuscript. Double-blind anonymous peer review is performed by independent experts: academics or renowned practitioners. For interviews, practice reflections, and reviews, first-level (editorial) review is often considered sufficient, but editors may choose to ask one independent reviewer for their opinion. For empirical studies and theoretical papers, two external reviewers are asked to assess scientific quality. If the competent editor’s and the external reviewer’s opinions are different then the editor-in-chief will ask for a second independent opinion.
Before starting your work, please read our mission statement, available at https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/szocialisszemle/Mission.
Szociális Szemle/Social Review follows the COPE principles for reviewers: https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf
Please report any potential conflicting interests: e.g., recognizing the author by their work; co-authorship within the previous 3 years.
Please let us know within one week of receiving the invitation if you are unable to comply with our request.
Please use and fill in the downloadable form. You can send the completed review to the responsible editor (erdos.marta@pte.hu) or use the electronic submission system of the journal.
Reviewers must not share the manuscript (or parts of the manuscript) before publication.
If you do not feel fully competent in certain questions (e.g., a professional subfield or research methodology etc.), then inform the editors who will invite further independent reviewers.
Please indicate if you suspect plagiarism or non-referenced, non-transparent use of artificial intelligence.
Authors are expected to amend the contents of their submissions – reviewers are responsible only for suggestions.
Proofreading is the editors’ responsibility.
