1. The editorial office appoints at least two independent critics from outside the unit to review each publication.
   
   

2. Texts in foreign languages are reviewed by at least one critic affiliated to foreign institution other then the institution of the reviewed work’s author.
   
   

3. Authors and critics do not know each others identities (double blind review process).
   
   

4. The review should be in writing and contain explicit conclusion either to admit the article to publication or to refuse it.
   
   

5. Principles of publication’s appraisal are included in the “Instructions for authors”.
   
   

6. The names of reviewers of particular publications/numbers are not reviled; once a year the magazine makes the names of co-operating reviewers public known.  

I. Reviewing Process

Reviewers participate in the works of the Editorial Team and have an influence on the decisions made by the Editorial Team. They can also, upon the consensus with the Authors, influence the final shape and polishing of the published works.

The review is conducted in double-blind mode, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other’s identities.

The identities of Authors are not known to the Reviewer, but they are known to the Editorial Team.

The surnames of the Reviewers of the respective issues are not published in a given number of the journal. Once a year the journal publishes the list of collaborating Reviewers.

All scientific texts are reviewed (it does not apply to non-scientific reviews, reports, announcements, popular science articles, editorial versions).

The Review takes place before the text publication after the text has been sent by the Author for the Editorial Team's evaluation.

The Editorial Team employs at least two independent Reviewers for evaluation of each publication from outside the scientific unit affiliated with the publication’s Author (external reviews). Texts in foreign languages are evaluated by at least one affiliated Reviewer from a foreign institution other than the Author of the work under review.

The Editorial Team is responsible for the selection of the Reviewers, having in mind in particular research interests, scientific achievements and competencies of the Reviewer in the field of knowledge to which the text in question pertains.

The Reviewer may refuse to conduct a review due to formal (e.g., conflict of interests, lack of possibility to meet the deadlines for carrying out a review) or informal reasons (scientific interests are not in line with the text’s subject matter). In such a case, the Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Team of this fact immediately.

It is unacceptable to employ the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member as a Reviewer.

The Editorial Team does not use reviews from other journals, commercial reviewing platforms, Internet forums etc.

If the Editorial Team Member or the Scientific Council Member is the Author of a text, the selection of the Reviewer is the responsibility of another member of the Editorial Team other than the Author. The rules and obligations of the Author apply to such a person, whereas, the privileges for the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member connected to participation in editorial work, reviewing process and making decisions about this text are not granted to such a person.

The Review must be in the written form. The Reviewer may send a review form or complete the review using a suitable online form. The Review must contain an explicit evaluation regarding accepting the text for publication or its dismissal.

Only texts which have undergone the review process and received two positive reviews can be accepted for publication by the Editorial Team.

Texts which received one negative review in relation to which the Reviewer sees a possibility for accepting the text for publication after the text is corrected may be sent to the Author along with recommendations. The Author enters the adequate corrections, and then the text is sent for another review (the second round of review). Texts which have obtained one negative review may be dismissed by the Editorial Team without conducting the second round of review.

Criteria taken into account during the review process are indicated in the reviewing form.

The Editorial Team sends the Reviewer the reviewing form, which is the basic document in which the Reviewer may include her or his conclusions. The Reviewer may additionally attach other materials to the review form (e.g., written remarks, the text along with comments).

The content of the Review is not publicised. Review reports may be made available to the Authors (after the anonymisation process.) Review reports are available to the Editors.

Any interaction between Authors and Reviewers is unacceptable. Their contact is anonymised. Conclusions and review reports as well as Author’s replies are sent via the Editorial Team or using the right system allowing for data anonymisation in the double-blind review mode.

II. Confidentiality Rule

All reviewed works are confidential, which means that disclosing them to third parties is unacceptable (except for authorised persons).

III. Rules for Preserving Objectivity Standards

IV. Scholarly Integrity Rule

The Reviewers are committed to meeting the highest standards and ethics rules  regarding the publication of scientific text and preventing practices that counteract the established standards. In order to do that they may enter adequate corrections, and also, in the case of suspicion of dishonest practices (plagiarism, falsifying research results etc.) or unethical actions, take a decision not to publish the text.

V. Rule of Sources Integrity

The Reviewers, if need be, should cite reference works not included by the Author. Any significant similarities to other works should also be indicated and the Editorial Team should be notified about them.

VI. Fair Play Rule

Issues such as race, gender, faith, origin, nationality or political beliefs of the Authors must not, in any way, affect the result of the review Texts sent for publication are evaluated first and foremost in terms of their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. Decisions of the Reviewers must be based upon scientific values [1]. 

VII. Rule for Counteracting Conflicts of Interest among Reviewers

The Reviewer must not use the reviewed works for her or his personal needs and merits. They cannot evaluate texts in whose case there may be a conflict of interest with its Author/Authors.

In the case of the Reviewer a conflict of interest may arise in circumstances where there are any doubts regarding her or his impartiality or her or his actions may be in any way influenced during the reviewing process, e.g., business, financial, legal affiliations; Reviewer’s opinions, scientific competition, and family relations.

VIII. Rule of Timeliness

The Reviewers are obliged to provide the review by a set deadline. If for some reason (factual knowledge, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or review the article, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team of this fact.

In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines [2]  and COPE Flowcharts [3]. 

[1] COPE Council, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf, acessed: 14.02.2023.

[2] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4, acessed: 14.02.2023

[3] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, acessed: 14.02.2023.