Title of the article (paper

(1)

Reviews should be prepared in compliance with the recommendations established by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the document “Good Practices in Reviewing Procedures in Science”, Warsaw 2011

https://www.archiwum.nauka.gov.pl/g2/oryginal/2014_02/307f933b1a75d6705a4406d5452 d6dbf.pdf

SECTION FOR THE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Review form Author of the article (paper) ……….

……….

Title of the article (paper) ………..

……….……….

……….

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – REVIEWER’S SECTION

Review form

Reviewer:...………...

Title of the article (paper) ………..

……….……….

……….

To the journal "Disability - issues, problems, solutions" Quarterly Review of scientific article¹ (paper)

1The publication is of scientific nature when the study presents scientific research on a specific scientific problem. The following research methods are distinguished in particular:

o observational - is an intentional search for facts and a deliberate activity of learning through the senses. Its scientific observation is a process of careful and intentional perception which results in scientific findings.

o intuitive - purely mental scientific work which involves considering concepts, speculations, problems, projects or other elements of broadly defined scientific and research work. It is used to justify the problem and the choice of a research method as well as to indicate assumptions and to set hypotheses.

o survey – that is asking questions and then - giving answers. The survey is a collection of written questions to get answers to solve a problem. These answers are statistically processed and the received results are then explained and interpreted.

o critical analysis - the very nature of this research method is to adapt the new problem to the existing knowledge, so the necessary step is the analysis and criticism of the subject literature.

o individual cases - is based on the most accurate and multilateral analysis of a few cases of a given phenomenon in order to obtain empirical conclusions. In-depth, thorough and multilateral analysis is intended to replace significant amounts of data that may be the basis for statistical analysis.

Review form of the Quarterly "Disability - issues, problems, solutions"

1

(2)

Evaluation criteria*

Detailed list Yes No

Is the title of the article adequate to its content?

Do the presented results (conclusions) may have a practical aspect?

Are the research issues up-to-date?

Is the article of scientific nature?

* Mark the appropriate box with a cross

Evaluation of selected aspects of the article (paper):

No. Assessment criteria

Manuscript evaluation*

good average poor not

applicable

1. Relevance of the problem 2. Topicality of the problem 3. Originality of the problem

4. Substantive level of the article (paper) 3. The importance of solving the problem for

science

4. The importance of solving the problem for practice

5. Scope of problem solving

6. Formal, linguistic, stylistic and punctuation correctness

7. Correctness of formulation of objectives, problems, hypotheses, theses

8. Accuracy of selection of research methods and tools as well as the ability to apply them 9. Literature selection and the ability to use

sources (Bibliography)

10. Correctness and quality of analysis 11. Interpretation of results and conclusions 12. Correctness of content layout and structure 13. Accuracy of selection and use of graphic

2

(3)

methods

*Mark the selected grade with a cross.

Review summary (maximum 1200 characters with spaces) - summary of own opinions and observations on the article (paper): e.g. elements integrating the community dealing with disability issues, expected interest for the reader, fragments deserving special attention, recommendations and final conclusions. The text evaluation should become a context of broader issues.

...

Justification for the assessment and specific comments (e.g. relating to changes in the text, shortening of the text, title, and other elements that can/should be omitted for the consistency and legibility of the text and its main line of argumentation, and whether there are elements that would add value to the text). Please state your reasons in details.

...

Proposal to accept a manuscript for publication:

1. No amendments

2. After minor changes indicated by the reviewer 3. After thorough amendments and changes 4. The manuscript is unsuitable for publication

Date and the Reviewer’s signature: ...

3