1. The review procedure is compliant with the regulations of Publishing ethics developed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
2. The works sent to the publishing house undergo initial assessment concerning formal requirements (Publishing guidelines for authors), substantive level and language.
3. Editorial board guarantees selection of appropriate reviewers on the grounds of their qualifications regarding the reviewed research scope – the scientific works are reviewed by researchers from Polish and foreign academic centres as well as by experts from given fields.
4. The works initially qualified for printing undergo at least one scientific peer review prepared by a researcher from outside of the institution of education, indicated by the Scientific board and in accordance with the rules of counteracting the author-reviewer conflict of interests and the rule of anonymity in the publishing process. In case of scientific journals each entry undergoes at least two independent reviews.
5. A reviewer is entitled to remuneration in the amount determined by the Scientific board on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the directive no. 105/2015 of the Rector of the State University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz dated 30th of December 2015 and directive no. 19/2022 of the Rector of the State University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz dated 22th of February.  
   
6. The review should be prepared taking into account the following principles: the author and reviewers do not belong to their identity (double-blind review process) and there are no conflicts of interest between them; verify on the basis of absolute objectivity and reliability of sources; the review can be prepared in two ways: by use of the review form or in writing, with written form constituting an expanded and well justified assessment including an unequivocal conclusion.
7. The reviewer may: accept the work for printing in the presented form, qualify it conditionally (the author of the work is required to make corrections suggested in the review) or reject the work as not suitable for printing.
8. The author is obliged to provide a written answer to the reviewer.
9. In case of a dispute or in complicated cases there is a possibility to appoint an additional reviewer.
10. The condition for publishing a publication is a positive review as well as the consent of the editor (or in case of scientific journals the executive editor) and the Scientific board.
11. Once a year, a list of all reviewers from a given calendar year is published.
12. All sent works and original copies of the reviews are archived in the documentation of the Editorial board and Scientific Publishing House of the University of Applied Sciences in Nowy Sącz.