Zał. nr 1 do Zarządzenia nr 42/2011 Dyrektora Instytutu Nafty i Gazu z dnia 30.12.2011 r.
Rules for the selection of reviewers and the preparation of reviews
1. The competence of reviewers
• A specialist receiving a proposal to prepare a review is required to assess their substantive competences and the possibility of making a review at a given time, and in case of doubts in this respect - to refuse to accept such a proposal.
2. Conflict of interests of the parties to the review proceedings
• A person who has received a proposal to review a given scientific work can not accept it in the conditions of a conflict of interest or the occurrence of circumstances that may make the parties involved in the proceedings be suspected.
• The review can only be undertaken by a person who with the autor as well as the entity ordering the review does not combine relationships that may affect the reliability, objectivity and public credibility of the review. A derogation from this principle is possible only if there is a very narrow group of specialists in the field.
3. Reliability and honesty in the preparation of reviews
• The reviewer should carefully read the peer-reviewed scientific work and make every effort to reliably assess its professional and cognitive value, as well as independence and innovation - according to the current state of the discipline of science represented by it and the requirements for reviewers.
• A reviewer obliged to give an opinion on the novelty presented to him for the assessment of scientific work can not avoid giving his opinion on the matter and a possible negative conclusion.
• The essential requirement is the impartiality of the reviewer to form assessments.
4. Coherence and reasonableness of reviews
• The review should be logically consistent and maintained in a material tone, it can not be brief, and its conclusions should be clear and unambiguous.
• The review should reliably review the content and conclusions of the reviewed work and include clear and well-founded assessments.
• The review should be unambiguously positive or negative.
• The reviewing procedure allows for conditionally positive reviews, containing suggestions for possible corrections or additions to the peer-reviewed scientific work. In this case, the reviewer has the right to re-verify the reviewed scientific work.
• It is unacceptable to issue reviews consisting mainly of objections but ending with a positive conclusion.
5. Conscientiousness and discretion of reviewers
• The review should be prepared in a timely and discreet manner, without consulting with other reviewers or providing them with information about their opinions and intentions.
• The review should be made and forwarded to the orderer within the time specified in the contract, and if the deadline cannot be met, the reviewer is obliged to contact the client and arrange a new, possibly long-term review.
• During the preparation of the review, the reviewer should not find out about the personalities of other reviewers in the same proceeding, and if knowledge on this subject becomes the same, he should not consult his work with other reviewers in any way, and especially ask them about predicted conclusions of their review.