Each submitted article is anonymously reviewed by two experts, who do not receive information about the identity of the author. Reviews are prepared according to a standard form that is the same for all submitted articles and essays, which is passed on to the reviewer together with the text (sample review form). Book reviews and other texts that are not scientific articles are evaluated by members of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Council. The author receives the reviews together with the Editorial Board's decision concerning publication of the text. The article may be accepted, accepted conditionally after introducing the changes recommended by the Editorial Board or rejected without the possibility of corrections. Authors should make the recommended corrections within the deadline set by the Editorial Board. Authors should provide field research protocols (including interview transcriptions) and datasets for verification and replication of results upon request to the Editorial Board. Authors are asked to briefly respond to reviewers' comments when submitting a new version of the article.

Authors have the right to appeal the decision of the Editorial Board if the it has refused to publish their article based on the reviews received. All appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Board within two weeks of receiving the rejection notice. The appeal should include arguments for publication of the submitted article. The Editorial Board, on the basis of the arguments presented, will either uphold the original verdict or ask for re-evaluation of the article by fresh reviewers. The journal does not charge for the publication of texts. All published articles are placed in the free access section of the journal website six months after the publication of a given issue. The journal does not print color graphs and illustrations in the paper edition.

If one of the authors of the submitted manuscript is a member of the Editorial Board or the Editorial Council, the manuscript should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief who will conduct the editorial process in accordance with the rules of a double-blind review. Similarly, the editorial process of texts authored by the Editor-in-Chief shall be conducted by the Chair of the Editorial Council of the journal.

The process of reviewing and evaluating the submitted article

1. Formal evaluation of the article: verification of technical correctness and completeness of the submitted material (including correctness of the display of any illustrations, tables, special characters, and the presence of required elements such as an abstract, keywords, etc.) by the Managing Editor.
2. The article is preliminarily evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and editors in charge of the topical issue to which the article has been submitted. At this stage, it is evaluated in terms of meeting the criterion of the originality of the text. In the case of violating the ethical regulations related to the publication of scientific texts, the editors reserve the right to reject the text and send information to the institution listed in the author's affiliation. The article is also evaluated for consistency with the profile of the journal and the planned topic of the issue to which it is submitted.
3. After initial approval, the article is anonymized (file content and metadata) and then submitted to reviewers from outside the Editorial Board. At this stage each submitted text is reviewed by two specialists. The following criteria are used for evaluation of articles: clarity of the objective, originality of research, theoretical background, quality of empirical research, originality of conclusions, relevance to the area of research consistent with the scientific profile of the journal and the topic of the issue, quality of language, clarity, punctuation and selection of sources adequate to the objective of the article. If the reviewer considers that they recognize the author of the article or is not qualified to evaluate the text, they pass this information to the Editorial Board, which sends the article to another reviewer.
4. The authors receive the content of the review and the decision of the Editorial Board. If the approval for publication requires corrections to be made, the author/authors have the opportunity to correct the text (in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions) and to respond to the reviewer's comments.
5. The revised article is evaluated again by the editors of the issue and, if necessary, referred again to the same reviewers for evaluation. Based on their opinions, the Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication.
6. After approving a text for print, the publishing partner signs a publishing agreement with the author, in which the author grants the publisher a free license (sample license agreement). Authors do not receive remuneration for the published texts.

The Editorial Board encourages its reviewers to familiarize themselves with the review policy published by COPE.