The reviewing process and qualification for publication

1. The Editorial Board of the Journal makes an initial assessment of submitted articles in terms of form and subject matter. A positive assessment by the Editorial Board is a prerequisite for forwarding the article for external review.
2. To this end, the Thematic Editor of the volume, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, appoints two independent reviewers from outside the academic institutions to which the Author of the publication is affiliated. The Reviewers are not employed by the institution publishing the Journal.
3. The Author of the publication and the Reviewers do not know one another’s identity (double-blind review process). In other cases, the Reviewer signs a declaration of the absence of conflict of interest, understood as direct personal relations between the Reviewer and the Author (in particular, kinship up to the second degree, a martial relationship), relations of professional subordination or direct academic collaboration in the last two years preceding the year in which the review was written.
4. The review is made in writing by filling out an electronic form and contains the Reviewer's explicit conclusion as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected. The Reviewer's opinion on the assessed article indicates whether:
5. the article is accepted for publication without corrections,
6. the article is accepted for publication with minor corrections (no second review required),
7. the article is accepted for publication on condition substantial corrections are made (a second review required). A second review is made by the Reviewer who suggested the substantial corrections,
8. the article is to be rejected.
9. In the event of one negative review (see 4d / rejection of the article), the Science Board shall appoint a third reviewer. This occurs only if the second obligatory review does not conclude with a request for significant changes (see 4c / a second review required). The decision of the Reviewer appointed by the Science Board is conclusive. 
10. The Authors submitting articles are notified about the outcome of the reviewing process.
11. The names of Reviewers of individual publications are not disclosed. The Journal makes public the list of collaborating Reviewers upon their consent. The list is updated annually.
12. The Editorial Board refuses to publish an article if:
13. the contents of the text are incompatible with the Journal’s profile and level
14. the Author is not fully eligible to the copyrights and economic rights to the text
15. the text infringes on the personal interests of other people (Code of Ethics bookmark)
16. the Author refuses to introduce necessary corrections suggested by the Reviewers and the Editors.
17. If there are no objections raised by the Reviewers or if the Author follows the substantive and formal recommendations given to them, the Editorial Board grants final approval for the text to be published and submits it to linguistic and editorial verification.

Review form

Reviewers collaborating with the Journal

Joanna Ławnikowska-Koper (Częstochowa)

Katarzyna Grzywka (University of Warsaw)

Günther A. Höfler (Graz)

Szilvia Ritz (Seged)