Review rules

• The submitted works are evaluated by the Editorial Board in terms of scientific, educational and presentation values. Works that do not meet the basic conditions of publication are rejected. Incomplete texts or texts prepared in a manner inconsistent with the rules set out below are sent back to Authors without a substantive assessment by reviewers.
• Other articles are submitted for independent review of two reviewers from outside the scientific unit, in which the author(s) is/are affiliated. Authors and reviewers do not know their identity (double blind review). The review should contain an explicit application on the conditions of publication of the article: no amendments, after corrections or a request for rejection of the article. The review form is available on the magazine's website (review).
• The names of reviewers of individual publications or issue numbers of the journal are not disclosed, but once a year, the Editors publish the list of cooperating reviewers.
• The final decision about qualifying the work for publication is taken by the Editorial Board.

Criteria for the qualification of works used by reviewers

• The practical meaning of work
• The educational importance of work
• Convergence of the title with the subject of work
• The correctness of formulating work objectives
• The correctness of the characteristics of the research material and the methods used *
• Fullfilled ethical criteria *
• The correctness of the presentation of the results obtained *
• Proper statistical analysis *
• The correctness of the discussion, including the results of own and other authors’ research *
• The correctness of conclusions based on own research, taking into account the objectives of the work *
• The right selection, number and timeliness of the references
• The volume of work relevant to the recommendations of the journal
• Proper preparation of figures and tables
• Linguistic correctness

* criteria for research works