All articles published in the journal The Malopolska School of Economics in Tarnow Research Papers Collection are subject to editorial review. The review is commissioned by the Publisher to independent academics who are not members of the editorial team, and its terms are governed by contracts concluded with reviewers. Prior to concluding the contract, Reviewers are asked to read the Editorial Code of Ethics. In the review process, the Editorial Board of the Journal is guided by the following principles:

1. Only articles that have been positively assessed by subject and statistical editors (if the work contains statistical material) are addressed to external review.
2. The review is entrusted to two independent reviewers, representing different scientific (academic) centres, which are not the author’s place of work.
3. Reviewers shall be appointed from among collaborators with scientific achievements in research areas consistent with the subject of the article with which the Publisher has concluded relevant agreements. The thematic editor may propose the appointment of an off-list reviewer, provided that the person is an independent researcher and has achievements in the given area. If the paper is in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers should be affiliated to a foreign institution outside the country of origin of the article’s author.
4. The review is conducted in the double blind review mode, which means that the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewer and vice versa―the author does not know the name of the reviewer. The author and reviewer’s workplaces are also not disclosed. The editorial secretary is responsible for the anonymization of articles and reviews.
5. The full content of the article is made available to the reviewer in the electronic system after obtaining his consent to prepare a review.
6. The evaluation of the work is made on the basis of the review form provided by the editors, which specifies the following criteria: originality of the work and weight of the issues raised, correctness of the formulation of the objective and hypothesis (research problem), research methods applied, presentation of research results, way of interpreting the research results and drawing conclusions, structure and coherence of the text, logic of argument and argumentation, correctness of the terminology used and its compliance with applicable standards. Each criterion is scored by the reviewer on a scale of 0–5, where 5 is the highest. The final grade is the sum of points awarded and is between 0 and 35. The reviewer should justify his assessment by making specific comments. The review contains the reviewer’s recommendation regarding admission of the work for publication, possible publication after corrections or rejection of the article.
7. The author has the right to read the review.
8. If at least one review is negative (the reviewer makes a proposal for rejection), the article is rejected.
9. If both reviews are positive (reviewers propose publication), but the final grade of at least one of them is lower than 20 points, the editor-in-chief may decide to reject the paper.
10. If both reviews are positive (reviewers propose admission to publication), but at least one of them contains recommendations for “major” changes, the editor-in-chief may decide to reject the paper.
11. If both reviews are positive, but at least one of them contains detailed comments containing a recommendation to amend the text, the article is returned to the author with a request to take into account the recommendations of the reviewer or reviewers. However, if the recommended changes are defined as “major”, the editor-in-chief may decide to decline the work.
12. The author is required to formulate a written response to the reviews and submit it along with the text of the revised paper within the time limit set by the editors in the electronic system. If the content of the article changes, the author is also required to provide (in a separate file) a description of the changes.
13. The corrected article is again forwarded to the thematic editor, who gives opinions on the additions and changes introduced by the author, referring them to the recommendations of the reviewer or reviewers.
14. If the author refuses to introduce the recommended changes in the paper, the editor-in-chief may decide to reject the article.

Revievers of the papers published in: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 1999-2009