CRITERIA FOR ADMITTING ARTICLES TO THE REVIEW PROCESS:
1. there must be a correspondence between the topic of the article and the profile of the journal.
(2) In terms of form, the article should be logically structured, written in scientific language using scientific apparatus, should have an abstract and keywords.
(3) In terms of content, the author should address a specific scientific problem in the article. It is not sufficient to merely recapitulate textbook knowledge on the subject.
(4) The author is expected to bring new aspects and viewpoints to the article if the article deals with problems already discussed in the scientific literature.
(5) If one of the reviews is negative, the decision to publish in the European Journal of Heal;th Policy, Humanisation of Care and Medical Ethics is made by the editors. Two negative reviews result in the article not being published further.

REVIEW PROCEDURE:
(1) In the scientific journal European Journal of Health Policy, Humanization of Care and Medical Ethics, it is assumed that the procedure for reviewing articles is in accordance with the recommendations contained in the publication of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education "Good practices in review procedures in science", Warsaw 2011, and with the Communication of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 2 June 2015 on the criteria and procedure for the evaluation of scientific journals.
(2) It is assumed that authors, by submitting an article for publication in the journal, consent to the review process.
(3) The editorial secretary shall first assess the submitted text.
(4) Once the article text has been pre-qualified for the evaluation process, it is submitted to two independent reviewers with at least a post-doctoral degree for review.
(5) Submitted articles are not sent to reviewers from the same scientific institution as the authors, nor to persons who may have a conflict of interest with the author. Conflict of interest here means a professional relationship (professional subordination) and/or direct scientific collaboration (within the last two years preceding the year in which the review was prepared) and direct personal relations (kinship up to the second degree, marriage) occurring between the reviewer and the author of the reviewed text. It is also assumed that reviewers are not members of the Editorial Team.
(6) The principle of mutual anonymity of the reviewer and the author of the article is maintained (double-blind review process).
(7) The review process takes place on the OJS platform 3.2 Each article is assigned an editorial number identifying it in the subsequent stages of the publishing process. The reviewer, having agreed to prepare the review, prepares it using an electronic form available after logging in on the journal's website.
(8) The prepared review should contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer concerning the conditions of acceptance of the article for publication or its rejection. Reviews that clearly do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review shall not be considered. This applies to reviews containing unmotivated critical opinions or unmotivated praise, without a logical connection between the content and the conclusion (i.e. reviews that are strongly critical but with a positive conclusion or vice versa).
(9) The reviewer's assessment of an article boils down to the following possibilities:
- The article can be published without revisions.
- The article can be published after taking the corrections into account (without re-review).
- The article may be published with revisions (requires re-review).
- The article may be published in another journal.
- The article is not suitable for publication.
(10) The reviewer is expected to produce a review without undue delay. It is customary to allow two weeks for drafting the review.
(11) All rational and reasoned 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 the indicated manner. If the author of the article is advised to make corrections, then the reviewers have the right to revise the paper.
(12) It is expected that a reviewer will alert the Editor if he/she finds similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content.
(13) Reviewers are bound to confidentiality and keep all information provided by the Editor confidential. Reviewers are not permitted to use their knowledge of the paper prior to publication.
(14) The Editor-in-Chief is the person who finally qualifies the article for publication on the basis of the analysis of the comments contained in the reviews and on the basis of the final version of the article provided by the author.
(15) The editors shall publish once a year in the print edition of the journal and on the website an updated list of the reviewers with whom they work.

RESPONSIBILITY AND RIGHTS OF REVIEWERS:
(1) An article submitted to the Editorial Board of the European Journal of Health Policy, Humanization of Care and Medical Ethics that has been pre-qualified for the review process shall be forwarded to two independent reviewers who hold at least a postdoctoral degree and have no conflict of interest with the author(s) of the article of the type of work in the same scientific unit, close scientific collaboration, official dependence or close personal relationship (kinship up to the second degree, marriage). If there is a conflict of interest, reviewers should inform the Editor of the journal. The principle of mutual anonymity of reviewers and authors of the submitted article is maintained (double-blind peer review). if the group of specialists in a given scientific specialisation is very narrow, then the above rules may be waived.
(2) A reviewer should refuse to evaluate a submitted article if it is significantly outside the scope of his/her scientific experience and competence.
(3) The review should contain an unambiguous conclusion of the reviewer that the article should be accepted for publication or not accepted for publication, or that it should be accepted for publication with the necessary corrections communicated to the Editor and the author.
(4) If a reviewer has a suspicion of possible similarity of the reviewed article to any previously published content not included in the scientific apparatus of the text, they should notify the Editor.
(5) Reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality with regard to any information provided to them by the Editor. Reviewers may not, without the written consent of the authors, use data or concepts contained in texts provided to them prior to publication, including when the reviewed article has not been accepted for publication.

SCIENTIFIC REVIEW FORM:

Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw

European Journal of Health Policy, Humanization of Care and Medical Ethics

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE REVIEW FORM:
Article title: ............................................................................................
Please rate the individual article criteria on a scale from 1 (lowest rating) to 6 (highest rating)
L.p. Article evaluation criterion Evaluation
1 Complementarity of title with content
2 Originality of the text
3. scientific significance of the subject matter
4 Adequacy of the final conclusions to the assumed objectives
5. selection and use of the literature on the subject (relevant and up-to-date literature for the discipline)
6. structure and clarity of the argument
7. linguistic and editorial correctness (style, footnotes, keywords)
NOTE: in order for an article to be published without revisions or for an article to be published with revisions (without peer review), the average of the individual article criteria scores must be at least 3.0.
FINAL ASSESSMENT (underline as appropriate):
a. The article can be published without revisions
b. The article can be published with revisions (without peer review)
c. The article may be published after taking into account the amendments (but requires peer review)
d. The article may be published in another journal
e. The article is not suitable for publication
Detailed justification:
Reviewer's details for the editor's attention only:
Name and surname; Date of the review

Academic title, place of employment, correspondence address, e-mail, telephone number.