We invite you to familiarize yourself with the current journal volume

Scientific papers review procedure

  1. The procedure for reviewing articles complies with the recommendations published in the booklet "Good Practices in reviewing procedures in science" issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Warsaw in 2011.
  2. Editor-in-chief (or his/her deputy) is responsible for the article's thematic compliance with the profile of the journal. If the article is inconsistent with the profile of the journal or do not meet the requirements of the Guidelines for authors (in particular the lack of respect for copyright), it shall be returned to the Corresponding Author.
  3. After classifying the article as consistent with the profile of the journal editor-in-chief (or his deputy) shall select two reviewers from among independent academics specializing in the subject. Reviewers must ensure: the independence of opinion, no conflict of interest and lack of personal and business relationships with the authors of the article.
  4. Editor-in-chief (or his/her deputy) may delegate their powers regarding the selection of the reviewers as well as verification of the author(s) compliance with any conditions stated in the Reviews to a member of Editorial Board or an appointed Section Editor.
  5. Reviewing is conducted through double-blind peer review process. The reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The evaluation process takes place in strict confidence.
  6. Reviews are conducted on officially valid forms. A reviewer shall provide a signed review prepared on a form contributed by the editors, or in electronic form, downloaded from the website of the journal Review must unambiguously conclude either to admit the manuscript for publication or reject.
  7. Authors are informed of the outcome of the reviews after the name of the reviewers are concealed. Authors should refer to reviewers' comments, and immediately return the revised manuscript.
  8. If the article requires significant changes, the improved manuscript is sent back to be re-reviewed by the same or other reviewers.
  9. The manuscript must obtain clear positive reviews as a prerequisite for the next stage of publishing process.
  10. In disputable cases, we reserve the right to appoint an additional reviewer.
  11. The list of reviewers working with the journal editors in the previous year shall be placed in the first issue of the journal and on the website.
  12. The editors allow for post-publication reviews by publishing received controversies or debates on the articles, along with the authors' explanations or answers to critical comments.