The review procedure takes place according to the following rules:

1. The review procedure for publications submitted to Zoophilologica. Polish Journal of Animal Studies has been adapted to the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (in Polish: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego).
2. The review procedure applies to research articles, review papers, and review articles.
3. Reports, reviews and notes on books are not subject to the review procedure. They are assessed internally by the thematic Editor of the issue and the Editorial Board.
4. The criteria for acceptance or rejection as well as the review form are available to the public on the journal’s website.
5. Information about the next stages of the review process is provided to the Authors via OJS.
6. By submitting a text to the journal, the Author declares that the material presented is the result of their original research, has not been published before, either in part or in whole, and has not been submitted to another journal.
7. Upon submitting a text, the Author receives a confirmation of their submission, and the scientific Editor of the journal's given issue, together with the Editorial Board, reviews the text’s compliance with the journal's criteria for publication, e., whether it meets the journal's profile, has been prepared in accordance with the principles of scientific integrity, impartiality, and ethics, strives to raise scientific and linguistic standards, is original, and meets the editorial requirements for bibliography and footnotes specified in the author guidelines. The initial review may take approximately six weeks.
8. In the event that a text does not meet the above criteria, it may be rejected at this stage.
9. If one of the issue’s scientific Editors submits a text for publication in the same issue, their role is transferred to another Editor (e.g., the second Editor of the issue, Editor-in-chief, Vice Editor, or thematic Editor).
10. If a member of the Editorial Board submits a text for publication, their role is transferred to another member of the Board.
11. The submitted texts, which have been preliminarily accepted by the Editors, are anonymized and undergo the peer-reference procedure.
12. In cooperation with the Editor-in-chief and after consultation with the thematic and language Editors, the scientific Editor of a given issue selects Referees from the list available on the journal’s website. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the periodical, Referees from outside the list are sometimes appointed when the need arises; their names are also included in the journal’s list of referees. The list of the journal’s Referees is available on the journal's website and is updated once a year at a minimum.
13. At least two independent peer-referees, whose institutional affiliation is different from that of the Author, are appointed to evaluate each publication. The Referee must not submit a text to the journal’s issue for which they are writing a review.
14. If potential Reviewers consider the invitation to be consistent with their knowledge and expertise and do not perceive a conflict of interest (e.g. they are not in personal relations with, or professionally subordinate to, the author), they may accept it. If they decline, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
15. The review procedure is anonymous. Authors and Referees do not know each other’s identity (double-blind review process). Author / Authors or Referees do not know their respective identities (double-blind peer-review process); otherwise, the Referee signs a declaration of no conflict of interest, where a conflict of interest is understood as a direct personal relationship (in particular, first and second degree kinship or marriage), professional subordination or direct academic cooperation during the last two years preceding the year of preparation of the review.
16. The scientific Editor of a journal’s issue sends submissions to Referees and sets a deadline for their reviews. The peer-review process may take about two months. In justified cases (e.g., a second round of review) the review process may be extended.
17. Reviews are submitted in the written form; they are drawn up in accordance with the review form (Review form) and contain an unequivocal conclusion of the reviewer regarding the conditions of the submission’s acceptance or its rejection. 
18. The Author is informed about the result of the review and has access to relevant substantive excerpts from the review. The names of the reviewers are not disclosed.
19. Based on the Reviewers’ opinions, the Editorial Board decides whether to accept the text, reject it, or return it to the Author with a request to address the comments and make revisions within the specified deadline. For this purpose, the Author completes the “Author’s Statement” form. If a text contains no graphic materials, only the first two pages of the “Author’s Statement” should be completed; for texts containing graphics, the third page is also required. The Author declares that the said works are of their authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.e. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. 
20. Should the Author disagree with the Referee’s comments, they are also obliged to prepare a written response to the review on the above-mentioned form.
21. In order to ensure the authenticity and originality of the published texts, the author is obliged to indicate in the declaration the participation of each person (co-author) in the creation of the text (including information on the authorship of the concept, methodological assumptions and other data used in the process of creating the publication).
22. If individuals other than the listed co-authors contributed to the text, their names must be disclosed. This transparency aims to prevent scientific dishonesty, including phenomena such as ghostwriting (concealing the actual authors of a text) and guest authorship (unjustified inclusion as authors of individuals whose contribution was minimal or nonexistent).
23. The Author is obliged to present the Editorial Board with all information about the sources of financing of the research presented in the article and the possible contribution of research institutions and other entities (in accordance with the principle of financial disclosure).
24. If the aforementioned practices are discovered, the Editorial Board will inform the author's affiliated institution, reviewers, and any affected parties. Furthermore, the editors will withdraw the published text.
25. Having introduced the corrections suggested by Referees, the Author uploads the updated text, along with the completed “Author’s Statement”.
26. The text, together with the reviews and the Author’s response to the comments is submitted for re-evaluation by the scientific Editor of the issue and the Editorial Board. At this stage, the scientific Editor and the Editorial Board make the final decision on whether to publish or reject the text.
27. If the reviews do not call for substantive changes but suggest only minor editorial corrections, the scientific Editor sends the texts for subsequent stages of the editorial process.
28. A text intended for publication undergoes editorial and author proofreading, and, in justified cases, also stylistic editing. The Editorial Board reserves the right to introduce abbreviations and editorial modifications in the text. The texts are subject to authorisation. The author is responsible for the final version of their text.
29. Should the evaluations of the double-blind peer Referees differ substantially, the final decision about acceptance/rejection is taken by Zoophilologica’s Editors, who may appoint a third Referee to resolve possible doubts. However, texts that receive one negative review may be rejected by the Editorial Board without the need for a second round of review.
30. A text that has received negative reviews and has been rejected may be resubmitted to the journal after a six-month grace period. In such a case, the text is subject to a new assessment, primarily in terms of the correction of the defects indicated in the previous negative review
31. Although only submissions that have received two positive reviews may be sent for publication, positive conclusions do not automatically mean acceptance for publication. The final decision is made by the journal’s Editorial Board with regard to the issue’s overall conception as well as the submission’s anticipated impact.  
32. The Editorial Board may decide against making the reviews accessible to the Author, both in the case of two positive reviews (which therefore qualifies the text for acceptance) and in the case of an unequivocal rejection of the text.
33. Once the review procedure is over, the scientific Editor notifies the Authors of the decision to either accept or reject their texts.
34. The review procedure is supervised by the Editor-in-chief. Should the Editor-in-chief submit a text for publication in the journal, their role in the review procedure is taken over by another member of the Editorial Board.
35. The author's decision to publish in the journal is voluntary, and making this decision is equivalent to submitting the text in digital version and granting consent to publish the text file on the journal's website.
36. The reviews received are kept confidential by the journal's Secretary.