1. Once the review process is complete, the Reviewer delivers electronic version of the review by e-mail and the Assistant Editor:
   • informs the Author that the review has been submitted to the journal (when the reviewer states that the article does not require corrections or it requires only minor editorial corrections),
   • forwards the review with critical comments to the Author, who is encouraged to make corrections suggested by the reviewer. If the Author disagrees with certain remarks, he/she is under obligation to prepare response letter substantiating his position. 
   • sends the revised article to the Reviewer again, if the Reviewer finds it necessary.
2. Reviewers’ personal details are classified and they can be declassified only at the Author’s request and with the reviewer’s permission in case the review is negative or the article contains arguable elements. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes in its journal the full list of the Reviewers cooperating with the journal.
3. If the Reviewers accept the offer, the Editorial Board provides them with a full version of the article and an obligatory peer review report.
4. When the Reviewers are chosen, the Editor-in-Chief sends them a written offer with either a short description or an abstract of the article, defines range of reviews and sets a deadline.
5. If the scientific article fits the journal’s scope, the Editor-in-Chief appoints two Reviewers of recognized competence within the field of research, preferably with professor or postdoctoral degree. The reviewers must:
   • deliver an objective, independent opinion,
   • ensure no conflict of interests – they should have no personal relationships or business relations with Authors,
   • keep any information regarding the content  and opinion confidential. 
6. The Editorial Board makes the final decision about publishing the article based on analysis of the review and the revised version of the article that the Author has resubmitted.
7. If one of the reviews is negative, the Editor-in-Chief makes decision about rejection of the article or invites an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. When both reviews are negative, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the article.
8. The final version of the article (after making up) is sent to the Author.
9. Non-scientific articles do not need to be reviewed and they are accepted for publication by the Editor-in-Chief.

During the review, reviewers should answer the following questions by selecting the appropriate boxes on the review forms or providing detailed comments.

• Does the title of the paper reflect the content sufficiently and clearly?
• Does the abstract contain sufficient and useful information? Does it reflect the content and summarise the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions?
• Does the abstract meet the requirements for length (minimum 100 words)?
• Are the aims of the article adequately specified?
• Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
• Are the methodologies adequately described?
• Do the results seem reasonable based on the described methodology?
• Is the organisation of the paper satisfactory?
• Are the conclusions supported by the results?
• Are SI units used? Are units consistent in the text, tables and figures?
• Is the English language appropriate and understandable?
• Are the results presented in the paper novel?

The review should be performed objectively and in detail so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions, using appropriate arguments to support their theses.

Reviewers cannot suggest citing their own works unless there are substantive grounds for doing so. Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves or another author when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the article.

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools to review submissions or to generate review reports.

Reviewer's declaration

Our Reviewers