The review process is double blind.

Upon receipt, the paper is assessed by the editor of the journal for formal requirements and submitted, without indicating the name of the author, for expert assessment to the Editorial Board. If the Editorial Board recommends the original contribution for publishing, the paper is sent to two reviewers, experts on the respective field, for assessment in terms of facts, contents, topic and logical and formal aspects. A reviewer who does not feel sufficiently qualified to assess the article should report this fact to the editor and withdraw from the review process.

The authors and reviewers will remain anonymous both during and after the review process. The reviewer should not be an employee of the same workplace as the author or one of the co-authors. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.

If the author considers the reviewers’ opinions unfounded or erroneous, the author may not incorporate such opinions into the text of the paper, but they should attach a separate file to the revised paper describing reasons why the reviewer’s recommendations could not be observed. In the event that the reviewer insists on their opinion or where opinions of two reviewers differ considerably, especially if one opinion is positive and the other negative, the Chairman of the Editorial Board, in agreement with the editor, will decide whether the paper should be sent to the third reviewer. The final opinion on the publication of such papers is the responsibility of the Editorial Board.

The review reports are archived for 5 years.