Focus and Scope

Lublin Pedagogical Journal is published by the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University and the Faculty of Education and Psychology. The journal is indexed in: CEJSH, ERIH PLUS, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), ICI Journals Master List   (ICV 2024 = 100). Each year, four volumes are published, which are devoted to studies presenting pedagogy and interdisciplinary research. It aims to promote scientific exchanges of views, research approaches and research results in the field of contemporary pedagogical problems, including education and its multifaceted functions and conditioning. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles, with a preference for studies displaying innovative research approaches.

Lublin Pedagogical Journal is included in the list of academic journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. For publication in LPR authors received 70 points.

Section Policies

Artykuły

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Revisions

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Materiały

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Sprawozdania

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

1. Every submitted paper undergoes a formal selection process during which it is checked for compliance with the required criteria. If the guidelines are not met, the paper may be sent back to the author for the introduction of minor changes or rejected in the event of major incompatibilities with the requirements set out by the journal.
2. Papers prepared properly in formal terms are subject to the initial selection process.
3. The initially selected papers are referred for review.
4. Editor-in-chief in consultation with other members of the editorial team selects the reviewers. Should a need arise, editor-in-chief asks for the opinion of competent members of the Research Council.
5. Every paper is reviewed by two external, independent and anonymous reviewers.
6. In order to avoid the conflict of interest, selected reviewers do not represent the same institution as the one to which the author is affiliated.
7. The identities of both author/s and reviewers are concealed from each other (double-blind peer review).
8. By accepting the request to review a manuscript submitted to Lublin Pedagogical Journal, the reviewer makes a Conflict of Interest Statement. Conflicts of interest arise from competitiveness, collaboration or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewers with any of the authors or institutions to which the submitted manuscript is affiliated.
9. Reviewers prepare their reviews in electronic form using their individual accounts on the journal’s website https://journals.umcs.pl/lrp, and upload them in the journal’s system. The system does not allow for identification either of the author of the manuscript or the reviewer.
10. Reviewers prepare paper evaluations based on the review form and deliver their final recommendation in the form of a request to admit the text for publication or to reject it.
11. Reviewers may choose from the following recommendation options regarding the reviewed manuscript: accept submitted manuscript; required reworking; for repeated review; reject submitted manuscript.
12. In disputable cases or in the event of discordant reviews, the decision about admission for publication is made by the editorial team who is allowed to appoint an additional reviewer. Only manuscripts that received two positive reviews are admitted for publication.
13. The editorial assistant notifies the author about reviewer’s comments worded by the reviewer delivering the final recommendation.
14. Author of the paper must factually reply to all comments and requests provided in the review, using the available form.
15. The ultimate decision about admission of the paper for publication is made by the editor-in-chief having read the reviews, as well as author’s replies to Reviewers’ comments and reviewers’ recommendations.
16. An alphabetical list of reviewers is published once a year.
17. Paper reviews are archived.

Review Form

INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS

1. Consenting to review

Prior to consenting to review, reviewers should consider whether research problems addressed in the paper match their qualifications or research interests. In the event reviewers find that they lack sufficient knowledge allowing them to prepare a reliable and substantive opinion, they should decline to review.

2. Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest arise from competitiveness, collaboration or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions to which the submitted manuscript is affiliated. A prospective reviewer should not undertake to review papers in relation to which there are reasonable grounds to believe that a conflict of interest may emerge.

3. Meeting review deadlines

Reviewers should decline to review a manuscript, if they do not have sufficient time to meet the required deadline. The timeline for the review of one manuscript for Lublin Pedagogical Journal is 3 weeks.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

1. Reviewers should promptly inform the editor about suspected plagiarism by indicating relevant fragments in the manuscript.
2. If a reviewer reports suspected plagiarism, editor-in-chief follows a procedure in accordance with relevant guidelines determined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

Suspected data fabrication in a submitted manuscript

1. If a reviewer suspects that data used in the submitted paper were fabricated, he or she should inform the editor about it and indicate specific fragments of the paper bearing evidence of this fact.
2. If a reviewer reports suspected data fabrication, the editor-in-chief follows a procedure in accordance with relevant guidelines determined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

Suspected redundant publication

1. If a reviewer suspects that the reviewed manuscript shares the same components with a paper already published, he or she should promptly inform the editor of this suspicion.
2. If a reviewer reports suspected data fabrication, the editor-in-chief follows a procedure in accordance with relevant guidelines determined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

Suspected undisclosed conflicts of interest

If a reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, he or she should inform the editor about it, who should follow a procedure in accordance with relevant guidelines determined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

Ethical issue related to a submitted manuscript

If a reviewer suspects a specific ethical issue related to the submitted manuscript, he or she should inform the editor about it, who should follow a procedure in accordance with relevant guidelines determined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

Objectivity of review

1. Reviews should be drawn up in an objective manner, with a focus on substance-related aspects of the academic work, and in accordance with the guidelines found in the review form valid at Lublin Pedagogical Journal.

2. A review should deliver an objective judgement on a manuscript. All comments included in the review should be constructive and apply to the merits. It is unacceptable to criticise an author as a person.

Publication Frequency

SCHEDULE
Text recruitment	Issue number *	Estimated publication date
No 1 (2025)	from 16th July to 30th  September, 2024	until the end of March 2025
No 2 (2025)	from 1st October to 31st  December, 2024	until the end of June 2025
No 3 (2025)	from 1st January to 31st March, 2025	until the end of September 2025
No 4 (2025)	from 1st April to 30th September, 2025	until the end of December 2025

 

Average time for initial manuscript review: 7 days
Average lead time for manuscript review: 28 days
Average time in which an article is published: 180 days

Open Access Policy

List of Reviewers cooperating with the journal

2021

Marzenna Adamowicz, Józefa    Bałachowicz, Eunika Baron-Polańczyk, Urszula Bartnikowska, Aneta Bołdyrew, Katarzyna Borawska-Kalbarczyk, Krystyna Chałas, Daniela  Cvitkovic, Agnieszka Cybal-Michalska, Małgorzata Cywińska, Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak, Katarzyna Ćwirynkało, Ewa Domagała-Zyśk, Anna FIdelus, Sławomir Futyma, Zenon Gajdzica, Grażyna Gajewska, Jarosław  Gara, Anna Gaweł, Józef Górniewicz, Urszula Gruca-Miąsik, Małgorzata Gruchoła, Beata  Jakimiuk, Anna Jakubowicz-Bryx, Zdzisława Janiszewska-Nieścioruk, Ewa Kochanowska, Mirosław  Kowalski, Daniel Kukla, Kinga Kuszak, Justyna Kusztal, Michał Kwiatkowski, Roman Leppert, Walentyna Łozowiecka, Joanna Łukasiewicz-Wieleba, Piotr  Magier, Joanna Majchrzyk-Mikuła, Piotr Majewicz, Wojciech Maliszewski, Katarzyna Markiewicz, Bożena Matyjas, Janusz Miąso, Irena Mudrecka, Inetta Nowosad, Katarzyna Olbrycht, Danuta Opozda, Krystyna Pankowska, Katarzyna Parys, Ewa Pasterniak-Kobyłecka, Rafał Piwowarski, Beata Przyborowska, Mieczysław  Radochoński, Agnieszka Regulska, Aneta Rogalska-Marasińska, Małgorzata Rosalska, Dorota Rybczyńska-Abdel Kawy, Sławomira Sadowska, Anna  Sajdak-Burska, Elżbieta Sałata, Dorota Siemieniecka, Barbara Skałbania, Ewa Skrzetuska, Ryszard Skrzyniarz, Jolanta Skutnik, Hanna Solarczyk-Szwec, Bernadetta Szczupał, Jolanta Szempruch, Sławomir Sztobryn, Mariusz  Sztuka, Urszula Szuścik, Aleksandra Tłuściak-Deliowska, Renata Tomaszewska, Manuela Valentini, Laszlo  Varga, Wojciech Walat, Anna Wiłkomirska, Ewa Wysocka, Anna Zamkowska, Ernest Zawada, Agnieszka Żyta, Artur Żywiołek

2022

Agnieszka Barczykowska, Urszula Bartnikowska, Maciej Bernasiewicz, Aneta Bołdyrew, Katarzyna Borawska-Kalbarczyk, Krystyna Chałas, Sławomir Chrost, Daniela Cvitkovic, Małgorzata Cywińska, Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak, Ewa Domagała-Zyśk, Anna Fidelus, Zenon Gajdzica, Grażyna Gajewska, Anna Gaweł, Elżbieta Górnikowska-Zwolak, Daria Hejwosz-Gromkowska, Zbigniew Izdebski, Beata Jakimiuk, Zdzisława Janiszewska-Nieścioruk, Ewa Karmolińska-Jagodzik, Hanna Kędzierska, Ewa Kochanowska, Marta Komorowska-Pudło, Mirosław Kowalski, Andre Kurowski, Kinga Kuszak, Michał Kwiatkowski, Piotr Magier, Joanna Majchrzyk-Mikuła, Piotr Majewicz, Krzysztof Maliszewski, Wojciech Maliszewski, Bożena Matyjas, Grzegorz Michalski, Inetta Nowosad, Danuta Opozda, Ewa Pasterniak-Kobyłecka, Katarzyna Plutecka, Beata Przyborowska, Agnieszka Regulska, Kissne Reka, Małgorzata Rosalska, Krzysztof Rubacha, Elżbieta Sałata, Ryszard Skrzyniarz, Hanna Solarczyk-Szwec, Joanna Szafran, Anna Szafrańska, Grzegorz Szumski, Urszula Szuścik, Bogusław Śliwerski, Marta Uberman, Manuela Valentini, Małgorzata Walkiewicz-Krutak, Anna Wiłkomirska, Anna Zamkowska, Marzenna Zaorska, Ernest Zawada, Agnieszka Żyta

2023

Beata Antoszewska, Józefa Bałachowicz, Agniszka Barczykowska, Eunika Baron-Polańczyk, Maciej Bernasiewicz, Aneta Bołdyrew, Beata Bonna, Krystyna Chałas, Daniela Cvitkovic, Małgorzata Cywińska, Maria Czerepeniak-Walczak, Katarzyna Ćwirynkało, Athena Danilidou, Andrea Dessardo, Ewa Domagała-Zyśk, Miroslav Dopita, Katarzyna Dormus, Zenon Gajdzica, Grażyna Gajewska, Jarosław Gara, Anna Gaweł, Seda Gokce Turan, Beata Gola, Józef Górniewicz, Daria Hejwosz-Gromkowska, Beata Jakimiuk, Anna Jakubowicz-Bryx, Sylwia Jaskulska, Małgorzata Kabacińska-Łuczak, Ewa Karmolińska-Jagodzik, Joanna Kic-Drgas, Ewa Kochanowska, Hanna Kostyło, Ludwika Konieczna-Nowak, Mirosław Kowalski, Jacek Kulbaka, Kinga Kuszak, Piotr Magier, Joanna Majchrzyk-Mikuła, Piotr Majewicz, Bożena Matyjas, Iwonna Michalska, Irena Mudrecka, Maciej Muskała, Monika Nawrot-Borowska, Ewa Ogrodzka-Mazur, Katarzyna Olbrycht, Danuta Opozda, Sławomir Pasikowski,  Ewa Pasterniak-Kobyłceka, Francesco Pira, Beata Przyborowska, Krzysztof Rubacha, Elżbieta Sałata, Ryszard Skrzyniarz, Magdalena Smoleń-Wawrzusiszyn, Hanna Solarczyk-Szwec, Anna Szafrańska, Bernadeta Szczupał, Jolanta Szempruch, Grzegorz Szumski, Urszula Szuścik, Bogusław Śliwerski, Renata Tomaszewska, Marta Uberman, Laszlo Varga, Manuela Valentini, Wojciech Walat, Małgorzata Walkiewicz-Krutak, Edyta Widawska, Anna Wiłkomirska, Barbara Winczura, Ewa Wysocka, Zuzanna Zbróg, Agnieszka Żyta

2024

Agnieszka Barczykowska, Urszula Bartnikowska, Józefa Bałachowicz, Jarosław Bąbka, Katarzyna Bieńkowska, Katarzyna Borawska-Kalbarczyk, Beata Borowska-Beszta, Hanna Cervinkova, Małgorzata Cywińska, Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak, Katarzyna Ćwirynkało, Andrea Dessardo, Ewa Domagała-Zyśk, Zenon Gajdzica, Anna Gaweł, Daria Hejwosz-Gromkowska, Anna Jakubowicz-Bryx, Zdzisława Janiszewska-Nieścioruk, Sylwia Jaskulska, Małgorzata Kabat, Hanna Kędzierska, Michał Klichowski, Karol Konaszewski, Mirosław Kowalski, Violetta Kopińska, Iveta Kovalčíková, Kinga Kuszak, Joanna Łukasiewicz-Wieleba, Elena Marin, Piotr Majewicz, Bożena Matyjas, Janusz Miąso, Renata Michalak,  Henryk Mizerek, Anna Młynarczuk-Sokołowska, Maciej Muskała, Ewa Ogrodzka-Mazur, Danuta Opozda, Sławomir Pasikowski, Ewa Pasterniak-Kobyłecka, Katarzyna Parys, Rafał Piwowarski, Piotr Plichta, Dorota Podgórska-Jachnik, Irena Polewczyk, Beata Przyborowska, Krzysztof Rubacha, Anna Sajdak-Burska, Barbara Surma, Anna Szafrańska, Jolanta Szempruch, Grzegorz Szumski, Urszula Szuścik, Aleksandra Tłuściak-Deliowska, Danuta Urbaniak-Zając, Manuela Valentini, Laszlo Varga, Edyta Widawska, Agnieszka Wołowicz, Agnieszka Żyta

Publication ethics policy

Publication ethics developed by Lublin Pedagogical Journal have been based on COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines setting out the best practices for journal editors. Editorial team of Lublin Pedagogical Journal journal has applied the guidelines developed by The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).

Ethical guidelines to be observed in articles published in “LUBLIN PEDAGOGICAL JOURNAL” demonstrate editorial team’s mindfulness in maintaining ethical standards applicable to scientific publications and counteracting any misconduct in this respect.

All papers submitted for publication by “Lublin Pedagogical Journal” are checked for compliance with publication ethics, integrity and scientific merit.

All persons engaged in the process of publishing Lublin Pedagogical Journal journal (author, reviewers, editors, editorial team and publisher) undertake to observe the ethical guidelines at each stage of the publishing process.

Editorial team responsibilities

1. Observance of binding ethical standards and guidelines, and counteracting any kind of misconduct. Supervising observance of ethical guidelines at every stage of the process of publishing Lublin Pedagogical Journal.
2. Manuscripts are evaluated only with regard to its substance. Race, gender, religion, background, citizenship or political beliefs of the authors must not impact paper evaluation.
3. Editorial team must not disclose any information about academic work submitted for publication to unauthorised persons. Persons authorised to have this information are: author, designated reviewers, members of the editorial team, editors and the publisher.
4. When making a decision about publication of a manuscript, the editorial team considers reviewers’ comments and recommendations, compliance of manuscript content with journal’s profile, as well as the original and innovative character of issues addressed therein.
5. To prevent plagiarism or redundant publications, the editorial team of Lublin Pedagogical Journal have used iThenticate – Crossref Similarity Check plagiarism checker (https://www.ithenticate.com). Before sending the manuscript to reviewers, the editorial team checks all manuscripts submitted for publication using iThenticate plagiarism checker.
6. In case of suspected plagiarism or redundant publication, the editorial team acts in accordance with the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
7. Editors must ensure smoothness of the review process by ensuring objectivity, honesty and timeliness while preparing the reviews.
8. Editor-in-chief, in agreement with other members of the editorial team, selects two independent and external reviewers having relevant qualifications. Should a need arise, editor-in-chief asks for the opinion of competent members of the Research Council.
9. Editors check for any potential conflicts of interest disclosed by the reviewers and suspicions of redundant publications, or other ethical issues occurring therein.
10. Editors supervise integrity of published scientific research, investigate any irregularities noticed in the text, and should a need arise, suggest corrections in the text.
11. In the event of any complaints regarding violations of ethical guidelines in relation to a submitted manuscript, editors take appropriate measures as prescribed on the website of Lublin Pedagogical Journal.
12. Editorial team observes the principles of ethical research conduct and requires authors to declare that research they publish has been conducted in accordance with research ethics.
13. Editorial team respects the author’s right to obtain additional information and support from members of the editorial team with regard to formal preparation and submission of a manuscript.

Reviewer responsibilities

1. Before commencing assessment of the paper, each reviewer should determine their professional competences and practical possibilities to prepare the review within the determined deadline. Should reviewers have any doubts, they should refuse to complete the assignment.
2. By accepting the request to review a manuscript submitted to Lublin Pedagogical Journal, the reviewer makes a Conflict of Interest Statement. Reviewers are not allowed to review a manuscript, if there is a conflict of interest, or even if such a conflict is only likely to occur.
3. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if they lack sufficient time to meet the deadline for its preparation.
4. If there emerge significant causes that could not be foreseen due to which the work will not be completed on time, the reviewer should notify the secretary of the editorial team of this fact. 
5. Reviewers must deliver their honest, reliable and impartial judgement on the academic work. Reviewer’s comments should be constructive and substance-related. It is unacceptable to criticise an Author as a person.
6. Reviewers keep details of the review confidential to unauthorised persons.
7. All reviews are delivered anonymously, and the editorial team fails to transmit Author’s data to the reviewers.
8. Reviewer should inform the editor of any suspected violation of copyright in the reviewed paper, fabrication of data, potentially redundant publication, as well as any other ethical issue related to the reviewed manuscript.
9. Reviewers are expected to deliver a clear final recommendation.

Author responsibilities

1. Editorial team of Lublin Pedagogical Journal journal allows for submission of authentic original author’s manuscripts. An author makes a declaration about authenticity of the submitted manuscript.
2. Whenever an author uses works and figures by other authors, this must be clearly stated.
3. In case of multi-author works, all authors must complete a declaration about their percent contribution to the development of the publication.
4. Authorship should be credited only to those individuals who made a significant contribution to the development of the manuscript, with provision of information what their contribution specifically involved, e.g. conceptualisation, investigation, results analysis, interpretation and discussion, etc.
5. Authorship of the paper cannot omit persons who made a significant contribution to the development of the manuscript.
6. Authors must make a statement attesting to the originality of the paper they have submitted, that it does not violate any third-party rights and it has not been published or submitted for publication in another journal.
7. Author’s duties include disclosure of all funding sources of the projects in the study, indicating the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities (affiliation and/or relevant reference).
8. Authors are obliged to observe data sharing guidelines. Authors may be asked to provide raw data used in the manuscript submitted for publication.
9. Should authors discover significant errors or inconsistencies in their paper, they are obliged to immediately notify the editorial team of the journal of this fact, in order to withdraw the paper or correct the existing errors.
10. Authors are obliged to submit papers written in proper Polish or English.
11. Authors must submit a declaration about the use of artificial intelligence tools during writing of the submitted manuscript.
12. In case of papers presenting the results of author’s own research, an author must specify the relevant significant ethical rules (including obtaining informed consent to participate in the study).

1. Authors must declare a potential conflict of interest – personal, financial, professional, political or religious, that may influence the judgement on their paper. In case of multi-author papers, such declarations must be made by all authors.

 

Complaints and re-examination requests

1. 1.      Any complaints about the journal or the editorial team of Lublin Pedagogical Journal should be submitted to the editor-in-chief to (stanislawa.byra@mail.umcs.pl) or to the deputy editor-in-chief to (monika.parchomiuk@mail.umcs.pl).
2. Issues complained about may include inappropriate performance of tasks related to the operations of the journal.
3. Complaints about the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief should be submitted to the Publishing House of Maria Curie-Skłodowska University [Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej] to (wydawnictwo@umcs.eu).
4. Complaints shall be processed and charges responded to within two months of the date of submission of a complaint.

Indexing

CEJSH, ERIH PLUS, CEEOL, DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), ICI Journals Master List, EBSCO, Google Scholar

ISSN: 0137-6136