For reviewers
Thank you for helping us, through your voluntary work, to maintain and improve the professional quality of our journal. Reviewers play a key role in the publication process. To protect the anonymity of the review process, we acknowledge the work of our independent reviewers by publishing only a cumulative list: https://journals.lib.pte.hu/index.php/szocialisszemle/about/Reviewers
Review process
The journal operates a two-level review process. First, the Editorial Board reviews the submitted manuscript and either accepts it for peer review, requests substantial revision and resubmission, or rejects the manuscript. Double-blind anonymous peer review is performed by independent experts – university lecturers, researchers or renowned practitioners. For interviews, professional reflections and reviews, the first, editorial level of review is often sufficient, but the Editorial Board may decide that an additional independent review is needed. For empirical and theoretical studies, two reviewers are asked to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. If the opinions of the competent editorial board member and the external reviewers differ, the Editor-in-Chief may request an additional 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.
