1. Choosing of the reviewer
- At least two independent reviewers are appointed to evaluate each publication.
- Reviewers of the publication accepted for the editorial process are appointed by the Editorial Committee.
- When selecting a reviewer for a given publication, the Editorial Committee directs it to the person most competent in a given field - taking into account the knowledge and scientific achievements of that person and his/her reputation as a reliable reviewer.
- If there are not many specialists in a given field of science in Poland, the Editorial Committee directs the publication to foreign reviewers.
- If there are strong substantive and / or institutional disputes in a given field that may be related to the topic of the reviewed article or the activity of the person being assessed, the Editor-in-Chief will make every effort to ensure that these disputes do not translate into biased review procedures.
- The names of reviewers of individual publications will not be disclosed, while once a year, the Editorial Committee of the monthly journal „Nafta-Gaz” will make public the list of cooperating reviewers.
2. Conclusion of contracts for the preparation of reviews
- Entrusting the person to the preparation of the review will be confirmed by an appropriate agreement, guaranteeing the reliability and timeliness of the review.
- The review must be in written form and end with an explicit application for the article to be published or rejected.
- The Editorial Committee may not accept the review if it does not correspond to the provisions contained in the contract.
- The Editorial Committee will not accept reviews that do not meet the substantive and formal requirements of a scientific review, including partial reviews that contain non-motivated opinions and lacking a logical connection between the content and the conclusion.
3. Independence of reviewers' opinions
- The Editorial Committee guarantees the reviewer complete freedom and independence in the scope of the review.
- Before signing the contract and entrusting the article for review, the reviewer, based on a short information about the content (table of contents, introduction, summary) and the volume of the article, is obliged to notify the Editorial Committee about whether and when he/she will be able to undertake the review - however he/she has full freedom to decide whether to accept or reject the work for review.
4. No conflict of interest in the review proceedings
- The Editorial Committee will make sure that the author / authors of the reviewed article will be unaware of the identity of reviewers (single-blind review).
- The reviewer must sign a declaration of non-existence of conflict of interest, which is considered to be:
- direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships, conflict),
- professional subordination relationships,
- direct scientific cooperation during the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
- Derogation from the above rule is only admissible if the group of specialists in a given field is very narrow.
5. Confidentiality in reviewing procedures
- The reviewing procedure is carried out in accordance with the rules of confidentiality, however, after its completion, the reviews become public to all members of the Editorial Committee.
- The Editors provide the author of the article with the opportunity to acquaint him/herself with the comments of the reviewer in detail.
- Reviewers are required to maintain discretion regarding the information they have gained access to, as well as other information that could be subject to distortions of rumors and excitement in the scientific community.
6. Disputes in the review proceedings
- In disputable or complicated cases, or interdisciplinary work, the Editorial Committee will appoint additional reviewers.
- Receiving a majority of negative reviews will result in disqualification of the subject of the review, and if they constitute half of all the reviews obtained at a given stage or constitute a minority, but there is more than one - the Editorial Committee will appoint an additional reviewer.
- In the case of a recommendation to the author to make corrections to the submitted article, the right to its re-verification is vested in all reviewers.
- The Institute excludes the possibility of repeating proceedings related to the same or similar work if the previous procedure was unsuccessful.
7. Irregularities in reviewing procedures
- Any suspicions regarding possible irregularities or fraud will be clarified before the end of the proceedings, including the reviewing procedure.