About the Journal | Psychological tests in practice and research

Aim and scope
The journal prints scientific papers on psychological tests and other research tools. It is also devoted to the study of the process of assessment and its context, as well as to the analysis of the results of psychological measurement tools. The journal combines knowledge from the fields of psychology and psychometrics. The journal is addressed to psychologists employed in various departments of applied psychology, academics, students, and representatives of related disciplines interested in the latest developments in psychology.
The journal presents up-to-date knowledge on assessment, complementing textbook publications. It promotes good morals in the field of diagnosis, paying attention to the legal and ethical aspects of psychological assessment. Articles are accepted for publication on the basis of reviewers' opinions, according to the procedure outlined.
Every year, hundreds of studies using commercial and/or proprietary psychological diagnostic tools are conducted at Polish universities to educate psychologists. Among them, there are many valuable and worth publishing works, also because of their practical usefulness. Encouraging their authors to publish not only increases their competencies but also builds the belief that their work counts, that it is important for people from outside the dyad: graduate student-supervisor. Publications in the journal may allow other people to access ready-made proprietary tools or Polish adaptations of foreign tools. The article is a quick and permanent way to share interesting results and reflections with the psychological community.
We assume that the process of examining the accuracy of psychological tools (tests) continues throughout the use of a given tool and practically does not end. That is why we are interested in the results of tests in various groups, as well as correlates of test results and sharing practical experiences in the area of diagnosis. The journal is open to psychological practice and cooperation with other academic centers.
We want to act in this way for the benefit of the environment, especially psychological practice, and to create conditions for the comprehensive development of students and doctoral students. We hope that the publications in the journal will have a positive impact on the practice of psychological assessment and its teaching.

History
The idea of a journal supporting psychological practice in the area of assessment appeared in 2011. We discussed it with the team of lecturers at the Adama Mickiewicz University in Poznań, classes in psychological assessment. We believe that, as academic teachers, we have responsibilities towards science, didactics, and the profession. Our duty resulting from social responsibility for the level of psychological practice is to act for the benefit of the environment, especially creating conditions for the comprehensive development of psychologists-practitioners, as well as students and doctoral students.On September 17, 2014, the District Court in Poznań, I Civil Division, entered "Psychological tests in practice and research" into the register of journals under the number RPR 3288.

Ethics
The editors are committed to maintaining ethical standards in scientific publications and take all measures to prevent their violation. Articles accepted for publication are evaluated not only for reliability and scientific relevance, but also for compliance with ethical standards for scientific research with human subjects and publishing. The editors agree not to share any information regarding submitted manuscripts with anyone other than the first author, reviewers, potential reviewers and other direct contributors to the editorial office.

Review process
All the necessary steps of the review procedure are described after logging on to the review page (a link is sent in the e-mail).
Authors who submit articles for publication thereby agree to the journal's review procedure, to make any corrections suggested by reviewers, and to publish the text in electronic form.
Texts submitted for publication are accepted solely based on the evaluation of their scientific value, presentation of scientific achievements, usefulness for psychological practice, and without commercial purposes.
Each article undergoes a formal evaluation by the Editorial Board at the first stage and is then sent to reviewers.
The condition for the admission of the text to further review activities (the second stage) is its compliance with the profile of the journal.
At least two independent reviewers from outside the unit where the author is employed are appointed to evaluate each publication.
The principle that the author and reviewers know each other's identities is applied (the so-called open review). The reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest.
Reviewing takes up to 4 weeks.
The review is prepared according to the same criteria and must end with a clear conclusion (a. the text is suitable for publication; b. the text is not suitable for publication; c. the text is suitable for publication after changes or additions indicated by the reviewer).
The rules for qualifying or rejecting a publication and the review form, if any, are made public on the journal's website. Once a text has been accepted for review, it must be downloaded and evaluated using the indicated form included on the review page. The reviewer submits the review prepared in electronic form (review form) to the Editor. After submitting the review, you must select from the list your recommendation about it. The whole process is completed by sending an email to the editor of the department. Editors do not accept reviews that do not conform to the submitted review template.
The reviewer should immediately inform the editor of any perceived significant similarity (overlap) of the content of the reviewed text with another work known to him.
The names of reviewers of individual publications/novels are not disclosed; once a year, the journal makes public the list of collaborating reviewers
The author is informed of the result of the review. If the author of the text disagrees with the reviewer's conclusions, he has the right to respond to the Editor.
In the case of divergent or contradictory opinions of reviewers, the editorial board asks a member of the journal's scientific council who specializes in a particular field to evaluate.
In contentious cases, the final decision on eligibility for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Texts of a non-scientific nature (letters, information, and communications, journal reviews, book reviews) do not require reviews and are qualified for publication directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

REVIEW OF AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH REPORT
The decision to publish the submitted text is made on the basis of the review (recommendation) by the lead editor and the editor-in-chief.

Formal criteria
has a title also in English
has an abstract also in English
size of the text up to 15 pages
the content of the article justifies its greater length
the thesis/lecture on which the text is based has been graded >=4+

Content evaluation criteria
the title corresponds to the content of the article
the abstract adequately describes the issue and the results obtained
key words accurately reflect the content of the text
typical structure (content layout) of the research (empirical) article
the theoretical basis is presented adequately
the literature review is sufficient (complete)
the methodology of the conducted research does not raise any objections
the description of the conducted research is clear and readable, allowing, if necessary, to repeat the study
psychometric development in accordance with standards
conclusions (scientific and/or practical) are well justified
all tables and figures bring significant informative value
the language of the article is correct and clear
citations in the body of the publication are fully covered by the items included in the list of cited literature and vice versa
includes information about the consent of the author of the original version of the test for translation and cultural adaptation (in the case of translated tools)
in the case of case-study work: includes consent of the subject(s) and confidential information has been removed
are there any ethical objections to this article (if so, describe them below)?

Significant pluses of the text
a large group was studied (>=100 people)
a hard-to-reach sample (population) of people was studied
casuistic work (showing the importance of qualitative method or narrative)
interesting (new) data on the reliability of the test described
interesting (new) data on the structure of the described test
interesting (new) data on the accuracy of the described test
contains description of cultural adaptation of the tool
contains a description of the construction of the author's (original) tool
concerns new areas of knowledge (research)
concerns topics important for practice
the described method has the characteristics of being useful in practice
Detailed comments and suggestions (including expansion of the above evaluations, when necessary)*.

Necessary corrections, if any, are:
substantive
methodological
ethical
formal (citation, footnotes, bibliography)
argumentative (the flow of the argument)
stylistic, grammatical, orthographic
does not require corrections

Additional information
I am the promoter of the work on which the article is based
I am a reviewer of the work on which the article is based
no potential conflict of interest exists (arises) as a result of reviewing
I agree not to disclose and/or use any confidential information obtained during the reviewing process

Proposed form of footnote

REVIEW OF A REVIEW PAPER
The decision to publish the submitted text is made on the basis of the review (recommendation): the managing editor and and the editor-in-chief.

Formal criteria
has a title also in English
has an abstract also in English
has keywords also in English

Evaluation criteria
the title accurately reflects the content of the text
the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the text
literature review and research are sufficient (complete)
the theoretical basis is presented adequately to the current state of research
conclusions (scientific and/or practical) are well justified
all tables and figures bring significant information value
is informative also for non-specialists
has articulated references to practice
the language is correct and clear
list of cited literature (bibliography) compiled in accordance with the APA standard
publications cited in the content cover the basic works in the area under discussion
publications cited in the content include current work in the area under discussion
citations in the content of publications have full coverage of the items included in the list of cited literature and vice versa

Detailed comments and suggestions*

Any necessary corrections are:
substantive
methodological
formal (citation, footnotes, bibliography)
argumentative (the flow of the argument)
stylistic, grammatical, orthographic
does not require corrections
I want my name not to be known to the author (form of blind review)

REVIEW OF AN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH REPORT
The decision to publish the submitted text is made based on the review (recommendation) by the lead editor and the editor-in-chief.

Content evaluation criteria
the title corresponds to the content of the article
the abstract adequately describes the issue and the results obtained
keywords accurately reflect the content of the text
typical structure (content layout) of the research (empirical) article
the theoretical basis is presented adequately
the literature review is sufficient (complete)
the methodology of the conducted research does not raise any objections
the description of the conducted research is clear and readable, allowing, if necessary, to repeat the study
psychometric development following standards
conclusions (scientific and/or practical) are well justified
all tables and figures bring significant informative value
the language of the article is correct and clear
citations in the body of the publication are fully covered by the items included in the list of cited literature and vice versa
includes information about the consent of the author of the original version of the test for translation and cultural adaptation (in the case of translated tools)
in the case of case-study work: includes the consent of the subject(s) and confidential information has been removed
are there any ethical objections to this article (if so, describe them below)?

Significant pluses of the text
a large group was studied (>=100 people)
a hard-to-reach sample (population) of people was studied
casuistic work (showing the importance of qualitative method or narrative)
interesting (new) data on the reliability of the test described
interesting (new) data on the structure of the described test
interesting (new) data on the accuracy of the described test
contains a description of the cultural adaptation of the tool
contains a description of the construction of the author's (original) tool
concerns new areas of knowledge (research)
concerns topics important for practice
the described method has the characteristics of being useful in practice
Detailed comments and suggestions (including expansion of the above evaluations, when necessary)*.

The proposed form of the footnote

REVIEW OF A REVIEW PAPER
The decision to publish the submitted text is made based on the review (recommendation): the managing editor and the editor-in-chief.

Formal criteria
has a title also in English
has an abstract also in English
has keywords also in English

Evaluation criteria
the title accurately reflects the content of the text
the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the text
literature review and research are sufficient (complete)
the theoretical basis is presented adequately to the current state of research
conclusions (scientific and/or practical) are well justified
all tables and figures bring significant information value
is informative also for non-specialists
has articulated references to the practice
the language is correct and clear
list of cited literature (bibliography) compiled following the APA standard
publications cited in the content cover the basic works in the area under discussion
publications cited in the content include current work in the area under discussion
citations in the content of publications have full coverage of the items included in the list of cited literature and vice versa

Detailed comments and suggestions*

Blind review
I want my name not to be known to the author (a form of blind review)

Blind review
I want my name not to be known to the author (form of blind review)

REVIEW OF THE COMMISSIONED WORK
The decision to publish the submitted text is made based on reviews (recommendations): the commissioning editor and the editor-in-chief.

Formal criteria
has a title also in English
has an abstract, also in English
has keywords also in English

Basic criterion
the text was prepared following the arrangements of the contracting party

Evaluation criteria
the title reflects well the content of the text
the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the text and the results obtained
literature review and research are sufficient (complete)
the theoretical basis is presented adequately to the current state of research
conclusions (scientific and/or practical) are well justified
all tables and figures add significant informational value
has articulated references to the practice
language is correct and clear cited literature list (bibliography) compiled following the APA standard
publications cited in the content include basic works in the area under discussion
publications cited in the content include current work in the area under discussion
citations in the content of publications have full coverage of the items included in the list of cited literature and vice versa
list of cited literature (bibliography) prepared following the APA standard

Detailed comments and suggestions (including expansion of the above evaluations when necessary)*.

Necessary corrections, if any, are:
substantive
methodological
formal (citation, footnotes, bibliography)
argumentative (the flow of the argument)
stylistic, grammatical, orthographic
does not require corrections

Blind review
I want my name not to be known to the author (a form of blind review)

For authors
Authors are asked to check whether the text meets the following criteria. Texts that do not meet the editorial requirements may be rejected.
- I acknowledge that when submitting previously published works (reprints without any changes in content) for publication, written permission from the authors and the publisher for their use must be included and this information must be included in the text.
- I acknowledge that in the case of submission for the printing of my article previously published in a rewritten (altered, supplemented) form, the author is obliged to include an appropriate note indicating the original title, place, and time of publication and publisher.
- I acknowledge that the journal publishes only works that were made using the legal version of the tool. Also, in this case, the author shall provide an appropriate statement and an appropriate annotation in the text of the work.
- I acknowledge that in the case of using a tool adapted by me in my research, I will include the consent of the original author for translation and cultural adaptation.
- I acknowledge that in the "Editor's Comment" section you may provide the names and email addresses of proposed reviewers (this is necessary in the case of a research report based on a defended thesis or empirical credit work).
If you wish to anonymize the text sent for review, please make an appropriate entry in this section and also send an anonymous version of the text.