The procedure of reviewing scientific papers published in the journal "Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy" is in line with the guidelines described in the Announcement of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of May 29, 2013.

I. General Rules
1. The process of review and evaluation is subject to all papers of a scientific nature, intended for publication in "Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy".
2. By submitting an article for publication, the author agrees to this review process.
3. The initial evaluation of the article is carried out by the Editors of the journal, which rejects the text or qualifies it for the review stage.
4. The papers are reviewed by two reliable reviewers, competent in their fields or scientific disciplines, with at least a doctoral degree, independent and not in an employment relationship with the publisher and in a conflict of interest with the author.
5. The papers are reviewed confidentially and anonymously (double blind review process).
6. The list of reviewers is published in each issue of the journal and once a year on the semi-annual website.

II. Detailed rules
1. Two positive reviews are required for publication to be published.
2. If the reviewer recommends the introduction of corrections, the condition for accepting the publication for printing is their consideration and consideration by the Author.
3. The reviewer is obliged to confidentiality and secrecy of all information provided by the Editorial Office.
4. The reviewer may not use knowledge about the work before its publication.
5. In the event of a suspicion of similarity of an article to previously published works, the Reviewer is obliged to immediately inform the editors of "Barometr Regionalny. Analizy i Prognozy" of this fact.

III. Reviewer Guidelines
1. The review should be made using the Review Form.
2. The signed and scanned form should be sent via the OJS Platform. It is also acceptable to send a paper version of the article review to the Editor's address, with a handwritten signature, which is stored in the Editorial Office for 5 years.
3. The written review must contain the reviewer's unambiguous conclusion regarding the conditions of accepting the article for publication or its rejection.
4. Reviews prepared contrary to the substantive and formal principles of scientific reviews, containing unjustified criticism or praise of a scientific article, 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, will not be taken into account.
5. The final selection for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the analysis of comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.

IV. Suggestions for the Reviewer
1. An article may be accepted if:
a. contains novel interpretations;
b. concerns the broadly understood issues of: art sciences, culture and religion sciences, history, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, security sciences, social communication and media sciences, political and administration sciences, sociological sciences;
c. presents the state of research on a given issue;
d. the text discusses the results of research on areas related to the above-mentioned domains, provided that their impact on those domains is shown.

2. An article should be sent back for refinement if:
a. the topic or problem is not well and clearly defined;
b. inappropriate, incorrect or imprecise scientific terminology was used;
c. the structure of the text is not correct;
d. the literature on the subject is insufficient.

3. An article should be rejected if:
a. the content of the work shows a lack of knowledge about the discussed issues;
b. the formulated hypothesis is not probable;
c. the proportions between the importance of the discussed topic and the length of its presentation are strongly disturbed or missing;
d. it is an aggressive polemic in relation to another publication (book or article).