Qualitative Sociology Review

cover_issue_258_en_US

Qualitative Sociology Review


Redaktor naczelny:
Krzysztof Tomasz Konecki

For a long time, we have observed an increased interest in qualitative sociology, and the use of an interpretive frame to understand human actions, social processes, meanings and definitions, and new social theory generally

In order to enable a free flow of information and to integrate the community of qualitative sociologists, we have decided to create an open-access, international scientific journal.

Qualitative Sociology Review publishes empirical, theoretical and methodological articles applicable to all fields and specializations within sociology. Every submitted paper is blind reviewed and quality-controlled by two reviewers. The Editorial Staff and Consulting Editors strive to operate at a high level of scientific quality.

All sociologists who make use of an interpretative paradigm and a qualitative research methodology are welcome to submit their articles and support our initiative.

 

Our mission

Respecting a tradition in the social sciences of gaining an interpretive understanding (verstehen) of social phenomena, we are continuing to cultivate and develop the use of qualitative research as a tool of sociological inquiry. Cooperation, integration and the development of a scientific community are our core aims. As such, our journal exemplifies the following values:

Individuality
of every scientist, whose work is a way of developing knowledge about the world and improving himself/ herself as a penetrating observer of this world.

Equality and Tolerance
which manifest themselves in a respect for every human being and an interest in every opinion and mode of information, as the best way to discover the truth.

Community
of qualitative researchers who integrate through a common conception of science and through the discovery and explanation of social phenomena.

Science 
which takes advantage of pluralism and diversity to accumulate knowledge about society that is available universally and is used to influence the integration and development of various aspects of society.

Humankind
integrating through a qualitative way of understanding social action, where humans are treated as subjects who create and change the social world around them.

 

The current issue  The archives for journal content

Publisher: Lodz University Press

Amount of research and review articles which were published last year: 30

All articles are available in Open Access CC BY-NC-ND

Komentarze

O CZASOPIŚMIE

  • Editorial Staff
  • Editor-in-chief:
  • Krzysztof Tomasz Konecki, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Associate/Thematic Editors:
  • Leon Anderson, Utah State University, USA
  • Dominika Byczkowska-Owczarek, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Anna Kacperczyk, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Thaddeus Müller, Lancaster University, Britain
  • Robert Prus, University of Waterloo, Canada
  • Executive Editors:
  • Lukas T. Marciniak, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Magdalena Wojciechowska, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Content-related/Linguistic Editors:
  • Steven Kleinknecht, Brescia University College, Canada
  • Geraldine Leydon, Southampton University, Britain
  • Antony J. Puddephatt, Lakehead University, Canada
  • Book Reviews Editor: 
  • Dominika Byczkowska-Owczarek, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Online Content Editor:
  • Edyta Mianowska, Zielona Gora University, Poland
  • Newsletter Editor: 
  • Magdalena Wojciechowska, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Editorial Assistant: 
  • Anna Kubczak, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Mobile Version Editor: 
  • Łukasz Pyfel, University of Lodz, Poland
  • Linguistic Editor: 
  • Jonathan Lilly
  • Statistical Editor : 
  • Piotr Chomczynski University of Lodz, Poland

Komentarze

Author fees

This journal charges the following author fees.

Article Submission: 0.00 (PLN)
The journal does not charge for submission of the manuscript.

Article Publication: 0.00 (PLN)
The journal does not charge for processing or publication of the manuscript.

 

PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

The review process is arranged by double-blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.  Journals of University of Lodz are publishing scientific articles only after double-blind review, language and technical edition. We do not share our articles in pre-publication.

 

Information for the Authors

Our intent is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for a worldwide qualitative researchers community. All researchers for whom interpretative paradigm and qualitative methodology constitute the basic perspective for further analysis of social life as it occurs in specific social contexts are warmly invited to submit their papers and to partake, therefore, in our open access to scientific knowledge initiative. The editors of Qualitative Sociology Review welcome empirical, methodological and theoretical articles devoted to all fields and specializations within qualitative sociology.

In order to facilitate our cooperation and to shorten the time needed for publishing your article, we recommend that you take the time to read the sections below before submitting a contribution to Qualitative Sociology Review.

 

Article Publication Guidelines

 I. General Guidelines for Authors

    1. Manuscripts submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review should represent original work not previously published. They should not contain previously published materials and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
    2. The article, or any part thereof, is in no way a violation of any existing original or derivative copyright. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain appropriate written copyright permission for the reproduction of any copyrighted material, including images.
    3. All manuscripts must be submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review via email: office@qualitativesociologyreview.org. All references that explicitly reveal the identity of the authors should be removed from the article. A separate document including name and email address of all contributors should accompany the submitted article.
    4. Texts are to be saved in Word format with a .doc, .docx or .rtf extension. All illustrations, graphics, photographic images, and other figures should be included in a separate file (saved in the following formats: JPEG, TIF, GIF, BMP, PNG). Title and number of the figure (in Arabic numerals, e.g., Figure 1, 2, etc.) should be included in the figure legend. All figures must be listed in the order in which they are mentioned in the text.
    5. An electronic cover letter must accompany each manuscript submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review. It must state that the material for which the authors have exclusive rights is original and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere (including websites). In order to prevent the practice of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the letter must also include a statement attesting and indicating the specific contribution each author made to the manuscript. Submitting a manuscript accompanied by the cover letter is interpreted as indicating that each author participated in the preparation of the article, and have reviewed and approve the manuscript as submitted to take public responsibility for it. The corresponding author(s) should email the cover letter to: office@qualitativesociologyreview.org.
    6. All sources of financial support for the work contained should be disclosed in the covert letter.
    7. Articles should be written in English only.

 

      Authors are kindly asked to comply fully with these requirements, as well as with the general construction of the article and style requirements listed below. Failure to do so may constitute grounds for the rejection of an article at any time during the editorial process.

 

      Potential authors who have questions about these issues should contact the editorial office at:

office@qualitativesociologyreview.org


II. General construction of the Article and Style Guide

    1. The article should include an abstract followed with keywords (5-10) at the beginning of the manuscript, an introduction involving theoretical inspiration in the proposed analysis, a paragraph in which the applied methodology is presented, a research study or the main theoretical argument, and a conclusion. Authors are asked to follow the accepted norms of academic writing, including the provision of accurate and complete references.
    2. The style requirements of Qualitative Sociology Review are modeled on American Sociological Association Style Guide (4th ed.), 2010.
    3. Citations in Text
      1. If the author’s name is in the text, it should be followed with the publication year in parentheses, e.g., „When Znaniecki (1934) studied…;”
      2. If the author’s name is not in the text, the last name and year should be enclosed in parentheses, e.g., „… (Blumer 1969);”
      3. If the page number is to be included, it should follow the year of publication, with no space between the colon and the page number, e.g., „… (Goffman 1959:44).” Page numbers are to be mentioned only when directly quoting from a work;
      4. When a parenthetical citation includes two or more works, a series of references should be organized in chronological order and separated by semi-colons, e.g., „… (Becker 1967; Geer 1970; Turner 1981);”
      5. For joint authors, both last names must be given, e.g., „… (Glaser and Strauss 1967);”
      6. For three authors, all last names in the first citation in the text should be used. Afterwards, the first name and „et al.” should be given, e.g., „… (Anderson, Hughes and Sharrock 1986),” later in-text citation: „… (Anderson et al. 1986);”
      7. For more than three names, the first author’s last name and „et al.” in the first and later in-text citations should be used;
      8. If the author’s name is repeated, both the first name and the year of publication in parentheses should be given in the first and later in-text citation;
      9. If the author is an organization or a government agency, the organization should be mentioned in a signal phrase or the parenthetical citation each time the source is cited;
      10. If no date is given, the abbreviation „n.d.” (for „no date”) should be used instead of a year of publication;
      11. For unpublished materials, „forthcoming” should be used to indicate material scheduled for publication, e.g., „… (Smith forthcoming).” For dissertations and unpublished papers, the date should be cited.
      12. If there are two sources by the same author in the same year, the lower-case letters (a, b, c, etc.) with the year to order the entries in the reference list should be used, e.g., „… (Prus 2007a, 2007b).”
      13. If a source cited in another source is quoted, the name, date and page reference of the work in which information originated should appear first, followed by „as cited in” and the secondary source, e.g., „… (Mead 1934:78 as cited in Prus 1997:39).” Only the secondary source should appear in the reference list.
      14. Direct quotations longer than 50 words should be placed in a free-standing block of text. Full quotation (started on a new line) should be indented from the left margin and one blank double-spaced line should be entered before and after the block-indented quotation, quotation marks are not necessary. The parenthetical citation should come after the closing punctuation mark, e.g.,

According to Becker (1963),

 

[o]ne of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant…[B]eing caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one’s further social participation and self image. The most important consequence is a drastic change in the individual’s public identity. (p. 32)
    1. Reference List
      1. All references cited must be listed in the reference list and vice-versa;
      2. Reference list entries should be alphabetized by the last name of the first author of each work;
      3. Multiple items by the same author should be arranged in order by year of publication, earliest year first;
      4. Works by the same author in the same year should be distinguished by adding lower-case letters;
      5. Title of a book (ending with a period) should be followed with edition number if 2nd. ed. or later;The last and first names for all authors of a particular work should be given for up to and including three authors. If the work has more than three authors, the first three authors should be listed and then „et al.” should be used;
      6. The state abbreviation should only be included if the city of publication is not well-known. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles do not need a state abbreviation.
      7. Books;
        • Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
        • Mannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. Translated by L. Wirth, E. Shils. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
        • Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
        • Belenky, Mary F., Blythe M. Clinchy, Nancy R. Goldberg, et al. 1997. Women’s Ways Of Knowing: The Development Of Self, Voice, And Mind. 10th Anniversary Edition. New York: Basic Books.
      8. Collected Works/Chapters in Books;
        • Rose, Arnold M., (ed.). 1962. Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
        • Sacks, Harvey. 1972. „On the analyzability of stories by children.” Pp. 325-345 in Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J. Gumperz, D. Hymes. Oxford: Blackwell.
        • Natanson, Maurice. 1962. „Introduction.” Pp. XXV-XLVII in Alfred Schutz: Collected Papers, Vol. 1, edited by M. Natanson. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
      9. Print Journal/Newspaper Articles;
        • Blumer, Herbert. 1967. „Reply to Woelfel, Stone and Farberman.” American Journal of Sociology 72(4):411-412.
        • Strauss, Anselm. 1982. „Interorganizational Negotiation.” Urban Life 11(3):350-367.
        • Greenberg, Daniel S. 1991. „«Soft» Sciences Grow Up.” The Washington Post, November 13, p. A19.
      10. Electronic Articles;
        • Smith, Herman W. and Takako Nomi. 2000. „Is Amae the Key to Understanding Japanese Culture?” Electronic Journal of Sociology 5(1). Retrieved May 5, 2000 (http://www.sociology.org/content/vol005.001/smith-nomi.html).
        • Scheff, Thomas J. 2006. „Concepts and Concept Formation: Goffman and Beyond.” Qualitative Sociology Review 2(3):48-64. Retrieved January 12, 2007 (http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume5/QSR_2_3_Scheff.pdf).
      11. Unpublished Manuscripts;
        • Garfinkel, Harold. 1952. „The perception of the other: A study in social order.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Social Relations. Harvard University, Boston.
        • Stepick, Alex and Carolyn D. Stepick. 1990. “What’s In It For Me? What’s In It For You? Ethnographic Research On The Possible Undercount of Haitians in Miami.” Research Report No. EX90/11, Center for Labor Research, Florida International University, Miami.
        • Glaser, Barney. 2005. “The World-Wide Adoption of Grounded Theory.” Paper presented during the 37th World Congress of the IIS, July 6, Stockholm, Sweden.
    2. Footnotes and Endnotes
      1. Footnotes are used to explain or amplify text, cite materials of limited availability, or append information presented in a table or figure;
      2. Endnotes should be replaced with Footnotes.
    3. Foreign words used in the text should be italicized. Commonly used foreign words or terms (e.g., ad hoc, per se, et al.) should, however, appear in regular type.
    4. When using an acronym the first time, the phrase should be spelled out and followed with the acronym in the parentheses. Then the acronym may be used by itself, e.g., „…Qualitative Sociology Review (QSR)…
    5. Abbreviations such as etc., e.g., or i.e., should not be used in the text. They may only be used in parenthetical comments, e.g., „For example, some terms used in specific areas of sociology are not readily understood by the general sociologists (e.g., cultural capital, etc.).”

 

      We kindly ask authors to submit only carefully prepared manuscripts that are adjusted to these requirements. Articles that do not conform to the QSR Style Guide may be sent back to the author without review or put on hold until the submission is deemed in compliance with the requirements.


III. Reviewing and Publishing Procedures

    1. Once the submitted manuscript is received, the author gets an email notification informing that the article in question entered the review process. Further communication and agreements will proceed via email.
    2. All articles submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review enter a two-step unbiased review process – only the manuscripts accepted by the QSR internal reviewers will enter a regular double blind review process. The editors will try to make a preliminary decision concerning the potential suitability of a manuscript for QSR within a few days. Manuscript decisions are based on editorial discretion and/or input from the peer review process.
    3. Once the submitted manuscript is reviewed, the corresponding author is informed about the process’ outcome, and gets the Reviewers Report on the article in question. All data that may reveal the identity of reviewers is removed from the Report. If recommendations regarding the current version of a manuscript are included in the Report, the author(s) is/are required to improve the paper according to the reviewers’ suggestions.
    4. The publication proceeds once the manuscript is improved and accepted by the editors.
    5. Decisions concerning the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review are based on the following aspects of the paper:
      1. is the subject of the article adjusted to the profile of the Journal (e.g., does it refer to the qualitative analysis, does it pertain to interpretative sociology, etc.)?;
      2. does the article contribute any innovative or important ideas into the analyzed subject?;
      3. does it include indispensable and the latest publications in the references? Does it also include classic literature of the subject field?;
      4. does it have correct spelling and style, is it intelligible?;
      5. how can the article improve the Journal? Is it for example, elicit, controversial or important enough in any other way for social science to raise a discussion or inspire further research/considerations?
    6. The Journal strongly opposes the practice of ghostwriting and guest authorship. Therefore, the editors of Qualitative Sociology Review inform that all discovered instances of scientific unreliability will be revealed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the manuscript preparation. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include individuals who provided purely technical and writing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only a general support.
    7. The editors of Qualitative Sociology Review reserve the right to correct minor stylistic and/or orthographic errors without consulting the author(s).


IV. Submission Preparation Checklist

 

      As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission’s compliance with all of the following items. Please note that submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned to authors.

 

    1. The manuscript represents original work not previously published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
    2. All references that explicitly reveal the identity of the author have been removed from the manuscript.
    3. The cover letter indicating the specific contribution each author made to the manuscript accompany the submitted article.
    4. Appropriate written copyright permissions have been secured for republication of any copyrighted material included in the manuscript.
    5. The manuscript adheres to Qualitative Sociology Review style requirements and/or the authors recognize that it is their responsibility to make the manuscript adhere to the QSR Style Guide as a condition of acceptance.


V. Copyrights

  1. The main purpose of Qualitative Sociology Review is to foster development of science and to enhance human knowledge. Therefore, the Journal and all published articles constitute a contribution to the contemporary social sciences. Since this will support the concept of an open access to scientific knowledge, the source should be mentioned if any materials published in QSR were cited elsewhere.
  2. By virtue of its appearance in this open access Journal, it is understood that the article is freely available for use without any special permission, with proper attribution, for cognitive, educational, scientific, and other non-commercial purposes. It is thus, forbidden to charge for access to this Journal or to put any limitations on the accessibility of released papers.
  3. Making use of the resources included in the Journal for commercial or marketing purposes requires special permission from the publisher.
  4. Authors submitting a manuscript to Qualitative Sociology Review do so on the understanding that published articles are freely available for non-commercial purposes. Possible commercial use of any published article will be consulted with the author beforehand.
  5. Publication of the article proceeds once the appropriate written copyright permissions for republication of any copyrighted material included in the manuscript have been secured. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain written permission for publication of materials, which are protected by copyrights owned by a third party.
  6. Qualitative Sociology Review has a strict policy against plagiarism. Author submitting manuscript to QSR, warrant that it is his/her original work, and that he/she has secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner or authority for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material. If any article submitted to the QSR is found to have breached any of these conditions, QSR reserves the right to reject that article and any others submitted by the same authors. Qualitative Sociology Review may also contact the authors’ affiliated institutions to inform them of its findings.
  7. Qualitative Sociology Review has a transparent publications policy. It is means that all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work. It is the sole responsibility of authors to disclose any affiliation with any organization with a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript that may affect the conduct or reporting of the work submitted. All sources of funding for research are to be explicitly stated. If uncertain as to what might be considered a potential conflict of interest, authors should err on the side of full disclosure.
  8. Contributions from individuals who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged in the „Acknowledgments” section. This should include details of any other contributorship, such as data analysis, statistics, data collection, technical assistance, special thanks, personal assistance, and dedications. The „Declaration of Interest” and „Acknowledgements” sections will be made available to reviewers and will appear in the published article.
  9. Qualitative Sociology Review adheres to the Core Practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards: authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussionof its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

 

Originality and Plagiarism: authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

 

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publications: in general, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

 

Acknowledgement of sources: appropriate acknowledgement of the work of others must be given at all times. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

 

Authorship of the manuscript: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in the “Acknowledgements” section.

 

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author’s list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

 

Hazards and human or animal subjects: if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: it takes place when the author has a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations whichcould influence his research. This is why all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

 

Fundamental errors in published works: when the discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them in order to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

 

 

Editor Responsibilities

Accountability: the editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards (e.g. ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects, publication on vulnerable populations or groups of people), and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

 

Fairness: the editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

 

Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

Complaints and appeals: The publishing contacts (whistleblowers) are requested to help the editor to record and document the claim (e.g. data manipulation or fabrication, text recycling, plagiarism, research misconduct).  The report should include:

– specific information about the case (who, what, when, where, why),

– in case of plagiarism and text recycling, details should be given about the relevant texts/articles.

 

 

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues: the editor shall be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

 

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

 

The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider the manuscript) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should also pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Editors encourage readers to send by e-mail their opinions related to the material published. Editors are open to post-publication discussion.

Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

 

Promptness: any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

 

Confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

 

Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument was previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and conflict of interest: privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

 

Publisher responsibilities

Complaints and appeals: The Publisher is obliged to collect and share with journal editors all complains and appeals against the journal, its staff, editorial board and the Publishing Company itself. The company is also obliged to inform COPE, when there is any violation of Publication Ethics and any other regulations applicable in Lodz University Press.

Komentarze

Qualitative Sociology Review is indexed, abstracted and registered in:

  • BOAI: Budapest Open Access Initiative
  • CEEOL: Central and Eastern European Online Library
  • CSA Sociological Abstracts
  • DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals
  • EpistemeLinks – Philosophy Resources
  • ERIH PLUS: European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences
  • IBSS: International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
  • ICAAP: International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publications
  • Intute: Social Sciences
  • NSDL: The National Science Digital Library
  • ProQuest
  • PsyPlexus Directory
  • SCOPUS
  • SocINDEX with Full Text
  • The SocioWeb Directory
  • TD-Net: Network for Transdisciplinarity in Sciences and Humanities
  • Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Komentarze

  • University of Lodz Faculty of Economics and Sociology
  • Institute of Sociology The Sociology of Organization & Management Department
  • Rewolucji 1905 r. 41/43
  • 90-214 Lodz, Poland
  • tel. (4842) 635 52 63
  • email: office@qualitativesociologyreview.org
  • www.qualitativesociologyreview.org

Komentarze

Komentarze