The procedure for reviewing articles in “Theological Studies Bialystok Drohiczyn Lomza” is in accordance with the recommendations described in the brochure of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education "Good practices in review procedures in science", Warsaw 2011. and the principles of publication ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://www.wolterskluwer.com/pl-pl/solutions/informacje/dla-autorow/zasady-etyki-publikacyjnej). At each stage of the procedure, the principle of reliability, confidentiality and timeliness applies to everyone.

1. The authors submit the work for publication together with the written "Declaration of the author of the text" through the electronic system Platform & Workfow by OJS/PKP, go to the website https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/ In this way, they consent to the review process.

2. Using the OJS system makes the review process clear and transparent and allows for discussion at every stage of the review process.

3. Submitted publications are first assessed by the Editorial Board (internal review).

4. The Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors as well as Theme Editors participate in the internal review and suggest the selection of external reviewers.

5. Next, the publications are subject to a double-blind review process carried out by reliable reviewers who hold at least a PhD degree and are experts in their field.

6. External review is generally carried out by academics from outside the unit to which the Author is affiliated, who is not in a conflict of interest with the Author, which is understood as personal relationships, such as marriage or consanguinity or affinity up to the second degree, as well as professional subordination, scientific cooperation during last two years etc.

7. The editors reserve the right to appoint reviewers from their own scientific community in the case of Authors affiliated with universities other than UKSW Warsaw. Reviewers cannot be the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor and the Secretary of the Editorial Board.

8. In the event that the group of specialists in a given field would be very narrow, deviations from the above rules are allowed.

9. Works are reviewed confidentially and anonymously.

10. The paper is assigned an editorial number, identifying it at further stages of the publishing process, in order to maintain the principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article.

11. The review is always in written (electronic) form and ends with an unambiguous conclusion regarding the acceptance of the text for publication (ie acceptance) or rejection of the text (ie not acceptance for publication). The text review form is available on the journal's website.

12. The Reviewer's decision is limited to the following options:

    1. Accept the article for publication as presented.

    2. Accept the article for publication after taking into account the corrections.

    3. Reject the article.

13. Reliably substantiated opinions presented in the review are binding for the Author of the reviewed article. He is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the reviewers and improve the article in a certain way. All reviewers have the right to re-verify the work.

14. In the event of disputes, the Editor may order the rejection of the article or the appointment of another round of reviews.

15. The reviewer should alert the Editorial Board to the possible similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.

16. The reviewer should prepare a review without undue delay. The usual deadline for a review is four weeks.

17. Reviewers are not allowed to use knowledge about the work before its publication.

18. 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.