Every article published in the journal undergoes peer review. 

The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment of the article and assigns it to a section editor in the relevant field, who then selects reviewers and oversees the review process. A section editor may not review an article they have authored.

There must be no conflict of interest between the selected reviewer and the authors of the paper (such as professional subordination, kinship, or direct personal relationship).

Typically, papers are reviewed by two independent reviewers from outside the author's institution, with the identities of both authors and reviewers concealed (double-blind review).

In accordance with the requirements of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, a list of reviewers is published once a year, without linking reviewers to specific articles.

The reviewer completes a review form. The review must clearly state whether the article is approved for publication, and may include suggestions for changes or grounds for rejection.

The author is informed of the review results and the editorial team's decision. The author considers the reviewers' comments and makes any necessary corrections to the text. If the author disagrees with the reviewer's opinion, they may submit their response to the editors. If the reviewers disagree, the manuscript is submitted for a third review, and sometimes even a fourth.

The initial decision to publish a text is made by the section editor. Final approval for publication is granted at a meeting of the Editorial Committee convened by the editor-in-chief, based on the section editor's recommendation and subsequent discussion.

In accordance with good scientific practice, a reviewer may not use information from an article before its publication.

Article reviews are prepared free of charge within two to three weeks.

The rejection rate for articles is approximately 25%.

The above procedure is consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education contained in the brochure "Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science", Warsaw 2011.