Each submitted article is first assessed amongst the Editorial board or in consultation with a member of the Scientific Council. If the text meets the formal and scientific criteria, it is passed to two independent reviewers. If the editors are of the opinion that the manuscript does not meet the formal and scientific criteria, it is sent back to the author, if it is possible with suggestions for appropriate improvements allowing the article to be re-submitted.
Reviewers are selected from amongst the recognised scientists specialising in the issue undertaken in a given article. Reviewers do not know the name and affiliation of an author of the article, while the author does not know the names of the reviewers (double-blind review process). Reviewers within no more than 3 months provide the editor-in-chief with substantive opinions, which subsequently are sent to the author. Reviews are in written form and they end with a conclusion as to the conditions for publishing the article, or a reasonably justified conclusion regarding its rejection. If reviewers allow the text to be conditionally printed, that is, they recommend the author some appropriate changes (corrections), the author must refer to their proposals within no more than 2 months.
In the case of one positive and one negative evaluation, the article is directed to the third reviewer.