1. Selection of reviewers by the thematic editor
° To evaluate each publication at least two independent reviewers from outside the Institute of Oil and Gas – National Research Institute are appointed.
° Reviewers of scientific works accepted for editorial procedure are appointed by the appropriate thematic editor.
° When choosing a reviewer for a given scientific work, the Editorial Board contacts the person most competent in the given field – taking into account the expertise and scientific achievements of that person and his reputation as a reliable reviewer.
° If a particular branch of science in Poland has few specialists, the Editorial Board directs the publication to reviewers abroad.
° In the case of occurrence of strong factual and/or institutional disputes, which may be related to the topic of the reviewed scientific work or activity of the assessed individual, the Editor-in-Chief of INiG – PIB Publishing Houses or the deputy will make every effort to ensure that such disputes do not translate into any bias regarding the reviewing procedure.
° In the case of texts written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers will be affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the author of the scientific work being reviewed.
° The names of the reviewers of each publication may be disclosed after giving the author the opinion of the reviewer, and once a year, the Editorial Committee of INiG - PIB Publishers will announce publicly the list of cooperating reviewers.
2. Entering into agreements to prepare reviews
° Entrusting a person to prepare a review will be supported by a relevant contract, guaranteeing reliability and punctuality of review execution.
° Review must be in writing and explicitly ending with a proposal to allow for publication or rejection of an scientific work.
° The Institute may not accept a review, if it does not correspond with the provisions of the agreement.
° The Institute will not accept reviews which do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of scientific reviews, including perfunctory reviews, containing unsubstantiated opinions and without logical connections between content and conclusion.
3. Independence of opinions of reviewers
° The Institute provides the reviewer with full freedom and independence regarding his/her review.
° Before signing the agreement and entrusting the scientific work for review, the reviewer based on brief information about the contents (table of contents, introduction, summary) and volume of the scientific work has a duty to notify the Editorial Committee as to whether and to what deadline he/she will be able to take on reviewing - while retaining full freedom to decide to accept or reject the work to be reviewed.
4. No conflicts of interest in the reviewing proceedings
° The Editorial Committee of INiG – PIB scientific works will see to it that the author / authors of an scientific work did not know the identity of the people reviewing it.
° The reviewer must sign a declaration of non-existence of any conflict of interest for which is considered to be:
a) direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships, conflict)
b) professional subordination,
c) direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding preparation of the review.
° exception to this rule is admissible only if a group of experts in the field is very narrow.
5. Confidentiality of reviewing procedures
° The reviewing procedure takes place while respecting the principles of confidentiality, however after its completion, the reviews become open to all members of the Editorial Committee.
° The Editorial Committee provides the author of the scientific work with the possibility getting detailed acquaintance with the remarks of the reviewer.
° Reviewers are required to maintain discretion as to the information to which they have gained access, and other information that could cause their distortion through gossip and excitement in the scientific community.
6. The cases in dispute in the reviewing proceedings
° In cases of dispute, or complicated, or work of an interdisciplinary nature, the Editorial Committee will appoint additional reviewers.
° Obtaining mostly negative reviews will result in disqualification of the subject under review and, where they constitute half of all acquired at a given stage of review or a minority, but there is more than one – the Editorial Committee will appoint an additional reviewer of such a scientific work.
° If it's prescribed that the author should make corrections to a submitted scientific work the right to its re-verification shall be entitled to all the reviewers.
° The Institute rules out the possibility of repeat measures with the same or similar work, if the previous procedure was unsuccessful.
7. Irregularities in the reviewing procedures
° Any suspicions concerning possible misuse or abuse will be clarified before the end of the proceedings, involving the reviewing procedure.