About the Journal


Aims and scope


Guidelines for authors

Guidelines for reviewers

Submission Procedure

Solomon Asch Award

Publication Ethics



Abstracting and indexing

Web Services

New Articles Subscription

Call for Contributions

Terms of Use

Editorial Team


Aims and scope

Social Psychological Bulletin (Psychologia Społeczna) is an open-access (free for both readers and authors) peer-reviewed quarterly journal that publishes original empirical research, theoretical review papers, scientific debates, and methodological contributions in the field of basic and applied social psychology. The SPB Editorial team actively promotes standards of open-science, supports an integrative approach to all aspects of social psychological science and is committed to discussing timely social issues of high importance. SPB has a specific vision of how we should be sharing the results of scientific studies. Our values are described below as a specific FOCI: we want to create an outlet which is Focused on people, Open, Committed and Integrative.


Focused on People

We care about the people behind the ideas! Feedback from double-blind peer-review is often negative and discouraging. Editors should constructively and critically inspect/review/debate authors’ claims if there is data to support them. We believe that reviewers should be helpful in suggesting ways to improve the logic and/or coherence of the paper. SPB’s editors and reviewers will strive to be fair, critical and encouraging regarding the progress of collecting the best possible data to refute authors’ claims. We promise to keep a rigorous yet transparent (handling editor will be named once the paper is published) and supportive peer-review process in a friendly fashion. Furthermore, we want the review process to be relatively quick – for short research reports (<4k words), we will aim to reach the first decision within 7 weeks from submission. We also want to support authors in the early stages of their careers - researchers within 3 years of receiving their Ph.D., who publish their work in SPB will be automatically eligible for the annual Solomon Asch Award (500 €).



We should not put a price-tag on ideas and public knowledge! SPB is a fully open-access outlet (no charges for accessing the papers as well as no fees whatsoever for authors publishing their results with SPB). All papers in SPB will be published under a Creative Commons (CC) 4.0 license, meaning that authors will retain their copyright while allowing others to distribute and credit their work. ZPID will also enable us to use their open repository, PsychArchives, to make materials available which will supplement articles published in SPB (authors are asked/expected to openly share their data, code, or other materials). We will also support open-science practices e.g. pre-registration, sample size analyses which should ultimately lead to full implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). We aim to provide a broad perspective on social-psychological research by encouraging submissions of novel pre-registered research ideas as well as replications of previous work. We plan to implement the format of Registered Reports (Nosek & Lakens, 2014) by the end of 2018. In this format peer review is done in two phases – the first phase reviews the rationale and the detailed protocol of the study prior to data collection. Then articles can be provisionally accepted pending that the researchers follow their pre-registered methodology. This way of handling feedback from peer-review will focus on merits of theory and tested hypothesis itself. This procedure will reduce publication bias as it will be published regardless of the actual outcome of the registered study.


(Socially) Committed

We believe that social psychological research has the power to change not only people’s beliefs but also social practices! As it integrates an individual and societal level of analysis, social psychology has huge potential to impact common policies. SPB is not only committed to socially responsible research practices but also to focusing on socially relevant issues, of interest to a broader area of social sciences. SPB encourages submissions of timely, cutting-edge research on social problems of real concern for broader audiences, with special attention to articles suggesting possible amendments and solutions in current policies. Amongst the many possible topics, examples include discrimination, social inequalities, social and political conflicts, diversity, reconciliation, social change, etc. SPB is rooted in a certain cultural and geographical context (Poland and Central Europe); therefore, topics that refer to this local context, respecting its specificity but also revealing more universal underpinnings of the observed socio-psychological processes would be of special interest to our readers. Importantly, SPB is committed to supporting cultural and social diversity, in terms of gender equality and the diversity of ethnic backgrounds of our contributors.



Various theoretical perspectives and methodologies are welcome! SPB encourages submissions of theoretical contributions, debates, and research that aim to present and possibly integrate various approaches within the field of social psychology. SPB also welcomes submissions from a broad scope of perspectives, not only strictly related to social psychology but open to cross-disciplinary approaches, presenting innovative theoretical ideas and research on social psychological phenomena. SPB welcomes high-quality research that can be placed on the intersection of social, humanistic and life sciences, and can provide a comprehensive theoretical integration.




Guidelines for authors


Accepted formats

Social Psychological Bulletin (Psychologia Społeczna) accepts submissions in the following forms:

Type of article Word count Max number of figures/ tables allowed
Short research reports - main body of the article should report empirical results. To discuss more nuanced findings please make good use of the space reserved for supplementary materials 4.000 3
Research and review articles - empirical or theoretical papers 8.000 5
Target articles - if accepted will be accompanied by invited commentaries from specialists in the field 8.000 5
Methodological articles - presentations of psychological methods and instruments 8.000 5
Registered Reports - research articles in which methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and peer-reviewed prior to research being conducted. Once the protocol is accepted and the study is completed the authors are invited to submit the article including results and discussion sections. This format is open to replications as well as original research. 8.000 5

Please note that the word count excludes: title page, references, footnotes, and abstract (which has a separate limit of 250 words). The supplementary materials do not have a word count nor figure/table/references limit.


Author Instructions

All texts should respect the rules described in the 6th Edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (a sample paper conforming to the APA style can be accessed here). Submissions should also comply with the PsychOpen Author Guidelines.

  • We employ the double-blind reviewing process. The authors should not reveal their identities in the main body of the manuscriptThe main file should contain no identifying author information.
  • Manuscripts should be assembled in the following order: Running head, Title, Abstract, Keywords, Word count, Main body with tables and figures embedded in the text, References (APA style), Appendices (if any). Please note, this is an exemption of an APA style guide - please put the tables and figures in the text. This way we are making it easier for reviewers to examine the results. 
  • Within the submission panel, authors are asked to manually fill in the form by entering (copy and paste) the title, abstract and keywords of their submission. Please make sure that these details are also included in the main file.
  • Submitted work should be original, meaning it should not be submitted for consideration to another journal nor should it have been published in whole or in part in another journal. Yet, as we support and encourage authors to seek pre-publication reviews, we will be accepting manuscripts that have been previously distributed as online pre-prints. Also, once your work appears in SPB, the CC-BY-4.0 license agreement will not stop you from sharing your article with whomever you wish, to communicate your findings to a broader audience (i.e. using alternative channels: press releases, university bulletins, social media platforms such as FB, Twitter, ResearchGate etc.). This way we can celebrate a genuine open-access to knowledge and enhance research transparency.
  • All submissions are subject to stat-check and plagiarism screening (read more on PsychOpen's Guidelines on Publication Ethics).
  • We encourage authors not to structure the narrative of their articles on accepting or rejecting hypotheses, but rather on discussing the quality of evidence supporting/opposing their theoretical claims (as Jerzy Neyman’s legacy that "statistics should never be used mechanically"; cf. Gigerenzer, 2004).
  • We encourage authors to make good use of the generous word limit on the abstract length (up to 250 words), which should allow authors to describe their results/conclusion in fair detail.
  • Authors are asked to report the exact level of significance (e.g., = 0.055 or p = 0.045).
  • We encourage the use of tables for summarizing the results (with the appropriate inferential (including CI and size of the effect) and descriptive (N, M, SD) statistics).
  • For diagrams we encourage authors to use the color in their figures (using a palette that would be friendly for both printing and reading by people with color vision deficiency - you may want to consult ColorBrewer tool to determine which hues to choose that would be readable both online and when printed out/read on a black & white display e.g. e-book).   

Submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned to authors as it delays the reviewing and layout editing process.  

  • Each submitted paper will be initially sent to the Editor-in-Chief's office who will appoint an Action Editor (if all authors' guidelines are met), who will seek and invite appropriate Reviewers. Each paper is sent to at least three Reviewers (experts in the field), and the decision is made on the basis of at least two reviews. The authors may follow the status of the paper throughout the whole process by logging into the system. The decision (accept, minor revision, revise and resubmit, or reject) will be communicated electronically (via e-mail) together with the reviews and letter from the Action Editor. 


Data and materials sharing

  • We strongly encourage authors to upload their data and their materials along with their manuscript using our submission panel. There are many benefits to sharing your data and materials openly with the scientific community (i.e. preserving your data, allowing meta-analysis, increasing citations, collaboration, and data re-use; see McKiernan, et al., 2016; Tennant, et al., 2016). If you cannot share your data and materials please provide a valid explanation in the cover letter.
  • Data files should be anonymized and should contain (or be accompanied by) a codebook describing the labels of variables and the responses in English.
  • Data files and materials provided will be reviewed and distributed along the accepted article using a permanent data repository (PsychArchives).


Materials and Methods

In line with responsible and reproducible research, as well as FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reusability) data principles, we highly recommend that authors describe in detail and deposit their science methods and laboratory protocols in the open access repository protocols.io.

Once deposited on protocols.io, protocols and methods will be issued a unique digital object identifier (DOI), which could be then used to link a manuscript to the relevant deposited protocol. By doing this, authors could allow for editors and peers to access the protocol when reviewing the submission to significantly expedite the process.  

Furthermore, an author could open up his/her protocol to the public at the click of a button as soon as their article is published.

Stepwise instructions:

  1. Prepare a detailed protocol via protocols.io.
  2. Click Get DOI to assign a persistent identifier to your protocol.
  3. Add the DOI link to the Methods section of your manuscript prior to submitting it for peer review.
  4. Click Publish to make your protocol openly accessible as soon as your article is published (optional).
  5. Update your protocols anytime.


Quick turnaround

  • We encourage authors to submit short research reports (up to 4000 words) as the turnaround time on these reports should be effective up to 7 weeks until the first decision.
  • Usually, we give our reviewers 21 days to prepare the review. The authors will have 30-60 days to prepare the revision of their paper. The revision must be accompanied by a detailed cover letter describing all the changes that have been made.

Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606.

McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ELife5, e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800

Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical Tips for Ethical Data Sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2515245917747656. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747656

Tennant, J., Waldner, F., Jacques, D., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L., & Hartgerink, C. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review [version 3; referees: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research5(632). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3


Guidelines for reviewers

We all realize that the quality of a journal, and thus its prestige, depends on the quality of the published material, which in turn, largely depends on the feedback that authors obtain from reviewers. Therefore, no journal can be good without the dedicated work of reviewers. We all want to publish in good journals. We all want to shorten the time between submission and publication of our papers. All of this depends on reviewers. We are both potential authors and potential reviewers. If we want to obtain fast and useful feedback on our own papers, we should also provide the same type of feedback on other authors’ papers.

Manuscripts submitted to SPB are sent to three anonymous reviewers (double-blind peer-review) - the decision is made by the handling editor on the basis of at least two reviews. Reviewers may be scholars with, at a minimum, a doctoral degree, who are involved in research in social psychology and related domains. A request for a review is sent to the potential reviewer by the action editor via e-mail - we ask to confirm within 5 days whether one is willing or not to prepare the review.

The editorial team of SPB pays great attention to the quality of reviews. We ask our reviewers if they can suggest passages that need revision, deletion or expansion?

Most of us have probably had not only good but also bad experiences with reviews of our own papers. The most problematic are:

  • reviews that are evaluative without any informative content,
  • opinionated and unkind reviews,
  • reviews whose contents suggest that the reviewer has not read the paper.

In order to avoid those problems, we kindly ask our reviewers to follow specific questions below.


Suggestions for improvement

Detailed suggestions for improvement are very welcome! The more specific questions, that may help to construct the review, are:

Concerning the introduction:

  • Is the reference made to the current literature adequate?
  • Is adequate reference made to existing theory/ies?
  • Are proposed hypotheses plausible? Are the aims and hypotheses of the study clearly stated? Can the hypotheses be derived from theoretical introduction?
  • Is the overall structure of the report clear and appropriate? Is it in line with APA style?
  • Is the language of sufficient quality?

Concerning the methodology:

  • Are the technical details of the method and analyses clearly represented? Would the clarity and degree of methodological detail be sufficient to exactly replicate the proposed experimental procedures and analysis?
  • Do the authors declare that they have pre-registered the hypothesis and methods to test it? Are they disclosing all methodological decisions that have a bearing on the reported findings including the handling of missing data and outliers (perhaps in supplemental materials)?
  • Are the methods used in the article congruent with the current state of the art?
  • Are descriptive statistics for the main variables (raw and transformed) reported and presented appropriately for the full sample (e.g., N, means, standard deviations, standard errors, confidence intervals, first-order correlations, frequencies)?
  • Are the tables, figures, and photos or illustrations informative? Would you recommend any additional ones or recommend any of them to be removed or moved to supplementary materials?
  • Are effect sizes reported (not always required, but very desirable in most empirical studies)? Are significance levels reported using precise p-values rather than cutoffs (such as <0.01 and <0.05)?
  • Are the total number of excluded observations and the reasons for making these exclusions reported in the Method section?
  • Are all independent variables or manipulations, whether successful or failed, reported in the Method section?
  • Are all dependent variables or measures that were analyzed for this article’s target research question reported in the Methods section?
  • Is how sample size was determined reported in the Method section?
  • Does the analysis support the hypotheses?

    Concerning the results' discussion section:
  • How well are the paper's original objectives achieved?
  • Are conclusions supported by the data presented?
  • Are the implications of the findings for the hypotheses and theory clearly indicated and appropriately discussed?
  • What is the nature and magnitude of the contribution made by the report to the field?


Submission Procedure

Already have a Username/Password for SPB?
Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?
Go to Registration
Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

In order to submit a manuscript to SPB, authors are required to register with the journal and/or to login . Once logged in, you will find the online submission system either by clicking the "Submit a manuscript" button on the right-hand top of the screen or under '<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; fo