Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

As reflected in its title, the journal has a preference for original and novel papers which reveal new areas, aspects and contexts of social studies. The editors hope that Konteksty Społeczne will provide a platform for the exchange of theoretical reflection and results of empirical studies on various aspects of social reality.
The journal publishes scholarly articles, reviews, polemical voices, translations, reports, study reports and interviews. Selected issues have a leading theme: between three and six articles revolve around a particular subject matter and the remaining contributions may concern other topics. Sometimes there are also special issues devoted entirely to a particular topic.


Section Policies

Table of Contents

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Thematic articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Other articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Study reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Polemics and discussions

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Reports and announcements

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

1. By submitting a manuscript for publication in Konteksty Społeczne the author agrees to the review process. The manuscript is subject to preliminary review by the editor of a relevant section or a specialist in the field invited as the editor of a particular issue. In exceptional cases the Editorial Team may consult a submission with a relevant member of the Editorial Board.

2. If a manuscript meets the formal and academic criteria, it is sent to independent reviewers. If it does not meet these criteria, it is returned to the author (possibly with suggestions for improvements which would make it eligible for re-submission).

3. Each manuscript accepted following a preliminary review is subject to review by two independent reviewers in the double-blind review process.

4. Independent reviewers hold at least a PhD degree. Members of the Editorial Team or the Editorial Board, or persons working for academic units employing members of the Editorial Board or the author, are not eligible as reviewers.

5. Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief in cooperation with editors of relevant sections of the journal.

6. Reviews are conducted using review forms; the results are submitted in writing and conclude with a clear recommendation:
a) Positive
   (1) accept for publication as it is
   (2) accept for publication pending minor revisions
   (3) accept for publication pending major revisions
b) Negative
   (1) reject (the manuscript is not suitable for publication)    

7. A manuscript is eligible for the following stages of the publishing process provided that it has received two positive reviews. In disputable cases, the decision to publish a manuscript, to reject it or to send it to the third independent reviewer is taken by the Editor-in-Chief on consultation with the editor of a relevant section of the journal and, possibly, relevant members of the Editorial Board.

8. The author is obliged to make changes in his/her manuscript as suggested by the reviewers, unless he/she can convince them that there are no reasonable grounds for such changes. The final decision to publish or to reject the manuscript is taken by the Editorial Team.

9. Manuscripts which have received positive reviews are sent to relevant language editors, who can suggest changes in the text.

10. Electronic versions of peer reviews are archived by the Editorial Team.


Publication Frequency

The journal has a general ongoing call for papers; there are two issues a year, published in June/July (no. 1) and December (no. 2).


Open Access Policy

The journal is made available under the principles of open access, which means that its entire content can be instantly accessed online by anyone at any time free of charge. In this model, all Internet users have the right to read, copy, print, distribute, index, quote and browse content, including full text of articles, study reports, conference proceedings, academic lectures and books issued as open access publications. They can use such content without any financial, legal or technical restrictions provided that it is properly attributed.


Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Editors’ responsibilities

a. Editors select peer reviewers who are competent to perform the task of proper assessment of manuscripts.

b. Editors decide on the publication of manuscripts on the basis of scholarly merit only, regardless of the author’s ethnicity, origin, race, gender, political views or religious beliefs.

c. The Editorial Team does not disclose any information concerning submissions which have not been published.

d. The Editorial Team reserves the right to collect information on and to disclose cases of:

(1) plagiarism and self-plagiarism
(2) fabricating study results
(3) ghostwriting (a person who has made a substantial contribution to the work is not credited as an author)
(4) ghost authorship (a person appears as an author of the work although his/her contribution has been insignificant or none at all).

e. All cases of scholarly misconduct discovered by the editors will be revealed and reported to relevant bodies, in particular to the author’s home institution and to scholarly and publishing organisations.

f. If necessary, the editors are ready to publish relevant corrections, clarifications or apologies.

Authors’ responsibilities

a. Authors take full responsibility for the manuscripts which they submit.

b. Submitted manuscripts must be original papers which have not been previously published elsewhere.

c. Authors should not submit the same manuscript for publication in more than one journal at the same time.

d. In the case of multiple authorship, the authors are required to make a declaration concerning their percentage input in the work.

e. In the text sent to reviewers, authors do not include any information which would identify authorship.

f. Authors are obliged to follow international regulations concerning copyright to texts, graphics and other materials which are used in their manuscripts.

g. If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy when the manuscript has already been published, they are obliged to immediately inform the Editorial Team about the fact and to cooperate with the editors in order to retract or correct the article.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

a. Reviewers perform a reliable, objective and timely evaluation of submissions, indicating both their positive aspects and points where, according to their best knowledge, they should be improved.

b. Reviewers should properly substantiate all their comments.

c. If necessary, reviewers should indicate relevant works which have not been considered by the author.

d. Reviewers inform editors about any cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication of data or any other forms of scholarly misconduct.

e. Reviewers inform editors about their concerns over conflicting interests, and about cases where the text includes information which identifies authorship.

f. In the course of the review process all submissions are confidential; reviewers cannot disclose them to third parties.

g. Reviewers should refrain from personal criticism of the authors of reviewed texts.



1. Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL)

2. Erih Plus

3. Google Scholar

4. Index Copernicus Journals Master List

5. POL-index

6. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities



Reviewers list