Review procedure

The procedure of reviewing papers published in Dyskursy Młodych Andragogów/Adult Education Discourses is consistent with the guidelines of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (

  • Texts admitted for review are only those which meet the requirements set out in the "General rules for publication", "Formal and technical requirements" and "Article submission".
  • Each text is peer-reviewed by two independent external reviewers.
  • Reviewers of the texts published in the Dyskursy Młodych Andragogów/Adult Education Discourses are selected based on their  competence in a given field in order to guarantee a high standard and reliable review.
  • When assigning a text to reviewers, editors are guided by the principle of a lack of conflict of interest between the author and reviewer (authors and reviewers may not be in close personal or professional relationships, they may not be related).
  • Reviewers and authors do not know their identity ("double-blind review process").
  • Reviews shall be made in writing, and their conclusions should be clear and unambiguous.
  • Admitted for publication are texts that have received two positive reviews.
  • If a situation arises in which a text receives two contrary reviews, including one that is negative, the editorial office may decide to appoint a third reviewer.
  • Given difficulties in deciding whether to accept or reject a text, the Editorial Team may turn to the Editorial Board for support.
  • If the reviewer indicates the need to make alterations to the text, the author is obliged to submit a written „Response to the review” which indicates to what extent the text was adapted to the reviewer’s comments. Changes made by the author should be marked in the text.
  • The ultimate decision whether to accept a text lies with the editors of the journal, and is based on the opinions’ of the reviewers as well as the quality of the improvements made by the author in response to the reviews.
  • A list of reviewers is available on the website of the journal and is updated once a year.
  • The identity of reviewers of particular issues of the journal is not disclosed.


 Guidelines for reviewers

Reviewers are asked to prepare a detailed evaluation of the text, taking into account the following aspects:

- the text’s accordance with the am and scope of the journal,

- the text’s structure,

- the correspondence of the text’s title with its content,

- the clarity of the aim of the article,

- the relevancy, originality and importance of the subject matter,

- the correctness, and methodological clarity of the undertaken study,

- the substantive value of the text,

- the correct choice of sources,

- the correctness of the formal aspects of the text (language, citations, references, figures and tables),

- the appropriate choice of keywords,

- the accordance of the abstract with editorial requirements (the abstract of a research paper should contain: the research problem and aim of the article, methods of data collection and data analysis, indication of a research sample, main results, conclusions; for other types of articles – aim, the context of the issue presented in the article, main conclusions).

In the event of objections to the text, reviewers should include specific, constructive comments and suggestions that will help the author improve the text and correct its deficiencies or clear ambiguities.

In the final proposal the reviewer should make one of the following recommendations:

  • I recommend the text for publication.
  • I recommend the text for publication after minor revision (the text can be published after amendments are made in response to the reviewer’s comments and the acceptance of said amendments by the Editorial Team).
  • I recommend the text for publication after major revision and a re-review (a text with major changes should be reviewed a second time by the same reviewer).
  • I do not recommend the article for publication.