Cooperation with the editorial office: by formulating a review, the reviewer helps the editors to make an informed decision related to the publication of the text. His work is also intended to help authors improve their manuscripts to meet the highest scientific quality standards. The peer review mechanism (double blind review) is an important element of formal scientific communication and underpins scientific research.
Punctuality and qualifications: any invited reviewer who is not qualified to evaluate the submitted manuscript or knows that he will not be able to meet the review deadline proposed by the editors should immediately notify the editors so that the work can be passed on to other reviewers.
Confidentiality: all manuscripts sent for review are confidential and must be treated as such. It is forbidden to share them with third parties. This also applies to reviewers who reject the editorial invitation.
Objectivity: reviews should be impartial and written in a spirit of objectivity. The reviewer's observations should be formulated in a clear and unambiguous way so that the authors of the texts can use them to improve their work. Personal attacks on authors are considered inappropriate.
Documentation of sources: reviewers should identify references to works that have not been cited by the authors. Any observation, thesis, conclusion or argument presented in previously published texts shall be accompanied by an appropriate reference. The reviewer should also notify the editors of any significant similarities noted to other texts to confirm or rule out the possibility of plagiarism or unnecessary duplication of the publication (or its parts). In case of any doubts concerning the authorship of the article, we suggest to read COPE's guidelines:
Publicity of the review process and conflicts of interest: any reviewer who identifies a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative or other relationship with any of the authors of the texts or with companies and institutions related to the creation of the text or its content should immediately notify the editors of the conflict of interest and refuse to review it. Unpublished information contained in the text sent by the author may not be used for the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the authors. The content of the texts cannot be used by a reviewer for personal gain. This also applies to reviewers who reject the invitation to review. In case of doubts concerning the occurrence of a conflict of interest, we encourage you to read the PLOS guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/competing-interests and the rules of the University of Silesia Publishing House: https://wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/sites/wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/files/kolegium_wydawnicze-uchwala_nr4-zalacznik1-zasady_recenzowania-czasopisma.pdf