Only those articles that are consistent with the profile of the journal and present a sufficiently high substantive level can be accepted for publication. Reviewers fill in the forms received from the Editorial Office. The names of the reviewers of individual publications are not disclosed. Once a year, the journal publishes a list of reviewers cooperating with AHE.

The review procedures used by the Editorial Board of the journal are in accordance with the content of the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of December 2, 2015 (Journal of Laws 2015, item 2015) and guidelines on reviewing prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the brochure Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science (Warsaw 2011) and also in accordance with COPE diagrams, in particular:

1. Texts sent for publication are subject to initial evaluation by the Editorial Board of the journal.
2. Materials initially approved by the Editorial Office are subjected to routine anti-plagiarism checks.
3. The editors apply the double blind review principle, according to which the reviewer and the author do not know each other's identities.
4. Texts that will be initially accepted are submitted to independent reviewers from outside the unit, who:
   a) are not members of the Editorial Board,
   b) are not affiliated with the same institution from which the authors come,
   c) are not in a conflict of interest with the author,
   d ) they are not in a professional relationship with the authors,
   e) they have not been in direct scientific cooperation with the authors in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review,
   f) they are not in close personal relations with the authors,
   g) are competent in a given field and have at least a doctoral degree and appropriate scientific achievements,
   h) enjoy an unblemished reviewer's opinion.
5. The editors provide the potential reviewer with a description of the publication (title, number of characters or standardized pages [1800 characters]) and a summary of the text, leaving him full freedom to decide whether to accept or reject the text for review, but proposing a deadline for making the decision.
6. Reviewers are obliged during the reviewing process to confidentiality in their opinions on the reviewed text and are not allowed to use knowledge about it before its publication.
7. The reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the e-mail address provided on the review form
   or directly in the OJS system and in paper form with a handwritten signature, which is stored in the AHE Publishing House for a period of 5 years.
8. The editors of the journal do not accept reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, including casual reviews, dominated by unjustified critical opinions
   or unjustified praise, devoid of a logical connection between the content and the conclusion, i.e. reviews that are definitely critical, but with a positive conclusion or vice versa.
9. The reviewer's comments are forwarded to the author of the reviewed text. The rational and reasoned conclusions presented in the review are binding on the person. One is obliged to take into account the reviewers' recommendations and correct the text in an appropriate way. Reviewers have the right to re-verify the corrected text.
10. The decision to publish the text is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
11. If the author of the text does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer, one has the right to respond to them. In such a case, the Editorial Board may send the text for re-review or refuse to publish the text.
12. Once a year, the Editorial Board of the journal publishes on the website an updated list of reviewers with whom it cooperates.