Review procedure

In the first stage of the review process, the editors make a formal assessment of the text and then appoint independent reviewers affiliated outside the scientific unit from which the author(s) of the article come. The review process follows a double-blind review process model, in which article authors and reviewers do not know each other's identity.
Reviews are in writing (the Editorial Board has an appropriate review form) and conclude with a clear conclusion on whether the article is accepted for publication or rejected.
Requirements for reviewers:
- no conflict of interest with the authors (i.e. personal relationships: kinship up to the second degree, legal relationships, marriage, professional subordination relationships or direct scientific collaboration within the last two years) 
- possession of at least a doctoral degree 
- having the necessary knowledge to assess the quality of the article in question
- maintaining standards of professionalism and ethics
- they must not be members of the editorial board or scientific advisory board of the journal
- are not suggested by the authors of texts to be published 

Reviewers who accept the call for review are asked to provide a review within 3 weeks. This may be extended at the request of the reviewer.
Reviewers' comments are then forwarded to the author. The rational and reasoned conclusions presented in the review are binding on the author. He is obliged to take the reviewers' recommendations into account and improve the text. Changes made to the article should be described in detail or visible in the MS Word change tracking mode. The reviewers have the right to revise the revised text again. If the author of the text does not agree with the reviewer's conclusions, he/she has the right to present his/her position to the editors in a polemical note (response to the reviews). Revised versions of articles may be sent to reviewers depending on whether they wish to see the current version.
The decision to publish a text is made by the editor of the issue, after consultation with the editorial board and possibly the scientific advisory board, on the basis of an analysis of the comments and conclusions contained in the reviews together with any polemic by the author of the text and the final version of the text provided by the author, checking the proper selection of reviewers, the adequacy of the reviewers' opinions and the author's response to them, and the overall scientific quality of the article.

Reviewers are obliged to be confidential in their opinions about the reviewed article and not to use the knowledge gained on this occasion before publication. Reviews of journal articles are performed for a fee on the basis of signed performance contracts. Reviewers follow the reviewing rules adopted by the editors.
The names of reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed. The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal is posted once a year on the journal's website.
The reviewing procedure is in accordance with the recommendations of the brochure Good practices in reviewing procedures in science (MNiSzW, Warsaw 2011) and the standards of COPE.
https://publicationethics.org/files/ethical-problem-in-submitted-manuscript-cope-flowchart.pdf