Reviewer Guidelines

In the journal Social Research, our aim is to publish papers that are socially and scientifically relevant, theoretically founded and methodologically correct. The review should not be extensive; it is usually sufficient to give a brief overview of the good sides, observed weaknesses and shortcomings of the paper and specific comments and recommendations to the authors with suggestions for improvements. In addition to a general opinion on the paper, we suggest giving comments on certain characteristics of the paper such as:

  • Composition, clarity, informativeness
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Adequacy of scientific methodology
  • Choice and relevance of used literature
  • Social relevance


In writing specific comments and recommendations to the authors, as a reminder, here are some characteristics of a good paper:

- appropriate title

- abstract that describes well the content of the paper or the objectives, methodology, findings and conclusions

- sufficiently comprehensive reference to relevant and contemporary literature

- theoretical foundation of paper and satisfactory review of previous knowledge

- clearly stated purpose or goal of paper

- clearly formulated and founded hypotheses of paper

- sufficiently clear and informative overview of the methodology

- appropriate research methods, data collection and processing techniques

- all tables, images, and graphs are necessary and appropriate - a clear indication of the findings

- discussion and conclusions are consistent with the findings and / or previous text

- clear and engaging writing style

- social relevance of the topic

- interest to readers of the journal


In addition to the review, please highlight within the system one of the following recommendations for publication:

1. Publish without modification (in this form or with minor changes)

2. Publish with proposed changes

3. Recommend a thorough revision of the paper and have the new paper reviewed again

4. Not for publication


If you recommend the publication of the paper, please suggest the categorization:

1. Original scientific paper (contains unpublished results of scientific research)

2. Preliminary communication (contains new results of scientific research, but without sufficient detail to permit evaluation as in original scientific articles, and the results require prompt publication)

3. Review paper (includes an original, concise and critical review of one area in which the author him/herself participates, making his/her contribution with respect to already published papers)

4. Professional paper (contains useful contributions from the profession and for the profession, and does not represent an original research)