Reviewer form

Title of the reviewed article:

1. Compatibility of the title with the subject matter of the text. The text in this regard is: completely consistent, partially consistent, inconsistent.
2. Evaluation of the content and substantive content (including terminological correctness). The text in this respect is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad
3. Assessment of originality of subject matter and scientific value. The text in this respect is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad
4. Assessment of the logic of the argument and the manner of argumentation. The text in this regard is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad
5. Assessment of the composition, layout and language of the work. The text in this respect is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad
6. Assessment of the sources used. The text in this regard is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad
7. General evaluation. The text is: outstanding, very good, good, average, bad, very bad

8. Conclusion:
a. The text is eligible for publication in a scientific journal without changes - I recommend for publication in the journal "Studies in Humanities AGH. Society. Culture. Technology"
b. The text is eligible for publication in a scientific journal after minor changes and corrections - I recommend for publication in the journal "Studia Humanistyczne AGH. Society. Culture. Technology"
c. The text is eligible for publication in a scientific journal, but after making numerous and major changes and corrections - in its current form, I do not recommend for publication in the journal "Studia Humanistyczne AGH. Society. Culture. Technology"
d. The text does not qualify for publication in a scientific journal - I do not recommend for publication in the journal "Studia Humanistyczne AGH. Society. Culture. Technology"

9 Proposed changes.