Peer Review Process

1. reviewers are associate and full professors, with the exception of a situation when a given text requirex competences of a specialist outside of the area of academic areas or a specialist whose expertise covers a number of areas, when it is impossible to indicate an individual whose academic degree or title would apply to both or more areas in question,
2. for the purpose of the evaluation of each submission at least two independent peer-referees, whose institutional affiliation is different from that of the Author, are invited,
3. Author or Authors of the submission are the Referees do not know their respective identities (double-blind review process); in special cases, in which the expertise needed precludes complete anonymity, the Referee  signs a declaration of the lack of the conflict of interest. The conflict of interest takes place in the case of direct personal relations between the Referee and the Author (especially kinship up to the twice-removed relatives level or marriage), professional hierarchical dependence or direct academic collaboration within two years preceeding the year of the preparation of the review
4. the written review includes the Referee's unequivocal conclusion concerning the conditions of the acceptance or the rejection of the sumbission for publication,
5. the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of the sumbission as well as the review form are available to the public in the journal's website.
6. in accordance with the principle of the double-blind reference, the names of the Referees of individual submission or issues of the journal are not disclosed; they are, however, listed in the journal's websites under the heading of "Er(r)go Peer Referees" in the Er(r)go homepage once a year in line with the regulations concerning the principles of journal ranking.