All materials published in the journal are subject to review by reviewers. Two reviewers are appointed for each material, who prepare opinions according to the "REVIEWER'S FORM" template. The reviewer is not provided with information about the author of the material submitted for review. The author has the right to familiarize themselves with the content of the review. The names of the reviewers of individual materials are not disclosed.

The review is presented to the editorial office in electronic form within 2 weeks from the receipt of the material by the reviewer. This deadline may be shortened or extended in justified cases, in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief of "Consilium Iuridicum". Exceeding the specified deadline may result in assigning the preparation of the review to another person designated by the Editor-in-Chief.

The review should contain a clear conclusion by the reviewer regarding the acceptance of the material for publication or its rejection. In the event of suggestions for corrections by the reviewer, the condition for accepting the material for publication is their inclusion by the author of the text.

The review should present the main theses of the reviewed material.

The substantive evaluation of the reviewed text should take into account the value of the text, in particular the usefulness of the discussed topics for the needs of practice and the compliance of the text with the publishing profile of "Consilium Iuridicum", the logical correctness of the arguments, the manner of presenting the author's own views, and the correctness of the use of the views of doctrine and case law quoted in the text.

The formal evaluation of the reviewed text should cover the correctness of the language and editing of the text and indicate whether the submitted text meets the requirements set by the editorial office of "Consilium Iuridicum". Any errors and corrections in this regard should be indicated in the final comments of the review and in the comments to the text. However, if necessary to make corrections due to obvious typographical errors, the reviewer highlights them in a distinguishing color directly in the text.

The text requiring revision by the author, after making corrections and additions highlighted in a distinguishing color, is sent by the editorial office for review by the reviewer.

The final decision on accepting the material for publication or rejecting it is made by the EDITORIAL BOARD.