1. The Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment of each submitted manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal’s scope and profile. Manuscripts that successfully pass this preliminary evaluation are subsequently sent for peer review.
2. When deciding whether to send a manuscript for peer review, the Editorial Team considers the following criteria:

• the scholarly nature of the article;
• its relevance to the journal’s scope and profile;
• the overall academic quality of the manuscript;
• compliance with the journal’s editorial requirements, including, in particular: a maximum length of 40,000 characters, including spaces, a summary in English (up to 250 words) together with the English translation of the article title, keywords in both the language of the article and English (up to five keywords), a biographical note (approximately 1,000 characters, including spaces) containing the Author’s affiliation, email address and ORCID iD, as well as references and bibliography prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines.

3. Manuscripts that do not comply with the editorial requirements of "Zeszyty Łużyckie" will be returned to the Author for revision and completion.
4. The Editorial Team, in cooperation with the Guest Editor of the respective thematic issue, appoints two external, independent Reviewers affiliated with institutions other than that of the Author. Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise, research experience and subject-area specialization relevant to the submitted manuscript, while ensuring the absence of any conflict of interest.
5. If a member of the Editorial Team or the Guest Editor of a thematic issue is also the Author of a submitted manuscript, their responsibilities in relation to that manuscript shall be assumed by another member of the Editorial Team.
6. The journal follows the double-blind peer review model, in which Authors and Reviewers remain anonymous to one another. Before a manuscript is sent for review, the Editorial Team ensures the anonymization of all information that could identify the Author, including the Author’s name, ORCID iD, affiliation, any indications of the Author’s identity, and data contained in the file metadata.
7. Reviewers are requested to prepare their reviews anonymously using the review form available on the journal’s website. The review form includes an assessment of the following criteria:

• the adequacy of the title in relation to the content of the article;
• the article’s originality and potential contribution to research in the relevant discipline;
• the adequacy of the methodology and theoretical framework;
• the use of relevant scholarly literature;
• the linguistic and editorial quality of the article;
• the validity of the conclusions.

The Editorial Team ensures that the Reviewer’s anonymity is maintained throughout the peer review process.

8. Reviewers are expected to prepare their reviews in a fair, objective and constructive manner. They are required to promptly disclose any potential conflict of interest to the Editorial Team. In such cases, another Reviewer will be invited to conduct the review. Reviewers are also required to maintain the confidentiality of all materials received for review.
9. The Editorial Team takes appropriate measures to identify cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism and other breaches of publication ethics during both the initial editorial assessment and the peer review process. Reviewers are requested to report any suspected cases of research misconduct. Where justified concerns arise, the Editorial Team conducts a further investigation in accordance with the journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Statement and with the use of appropriate technical tools (iThenticate plagiarism detection software).
10. Reviews are prepared using the review form provided by the Editorial Team and conclude with one of the following recommendations:

• acceptance for publication;
• acceptance for publication subject to minor editorial revisions;
• acceptance for publication subject to substantive revisions;
• resubmission for peer review following major revisions;
• rejection.

11. The Editorial Team makes its publication decision on the basis of two reviews. In the event of conflicting recommendations, the Editorial Team may, in consultation with the journal’s International Advisory Board, appoint a third Reviewer, whose recommendation serves as the basis for the final decision. The final decision on whether to accept or reject the article for publication is made by the Editorial Team and the Guest Editor of the respective thematic issue after considering the Reviewers’ recommendations.
12. The Editorial Team informs the Author of the acceptance or rejection of the article and communicates the Reviewers’ comments, where applicable. Addressing the Reviewers’ comments within the deadline specified by the Editorial Team is a prerequisite for the article’s acceptance for publication.
13. The Editorial Team verifies all revisions made by the Author following the peer review process. In cases involving substantial revisions, the Editorial Team may refer the revised manuscript to the Reviewer for further evaluation.