Articles sent to the Journal are reviewed in a two-stage process. At first they are subject to a preliminary editorial assessment (the summary will be primarily assessed), and if they get a positive opinion they are sent for further review. Reviewing process is compatible with the order of the Minister of Science and Higher Education dated December 12th, 2016, position 2154. Members of the editorial board do not review the qualified papers (from 2017).
There are at least two independent reviewers appointed to each publication who are not affiliated to the unit the author of the publication is.
Either the reviewers and the authors do not know each other (double-blind review process). In a special situations it is allowed review in a single-blind review process. Then reviewer sign a declaration on the absence of conflict of interest; the conflict of interest takes place when there are direct personal relations between the reviewers and the authors (in particular, kinship up to second degree or marriage), personal subordination or a direct academic co-operation within two years before preparing the review.
A written review of a scientific typescript contains a decision whether to accept the typescript for publication or reject it.
In the review the following elements are taken into consideration: whether the subject matter of the typescript is compatible with the profile of the Journal, whether the title is accurate and clear, whether the text has already been published in part or in full, whether it reflects the current state of knowledge, whether the bibliography has been properly selected and used, whether the methods, interpretation, and conclusions are correct, and whether the whole text has been properly constructed and it is clear and linguistically impeccable, whether the text might be shortened, whether the visual elements (graphics) have been suitably chosen and presented, whether the notes have been properly edited and whether the summary summarises the main problems of the typescript.
In a situation where an article receives one negative review, a third reviewer is appointed. Two negative reviews qualify the article for rejection. The final decision is made by the chief editor of the journal.
The reviewers list is published, as recommended by the ministry, after the publication of the following issue of the journal.
