Each manuscript submitted to INiG – PIB Publishing House and positively evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or his deputy is subject to independent scientific review. The review is prepared by two people from outside the Institute, selected by the appropriate thematic editor, who has academic achievements and specialist knowledge in the field of the reviewed text. The publisher does not guarantee a positive review of material submitted to the Editorial Board. The review is objective in each case.
In practice, the Publisher uses the so-called "Double blind review". At the stage of preparing reviews, the reviewer and author / authors do not know each other's identity. This information is only divulged to the parties after the review and publication (no conflict of interest). More information on the reviewing principles can be found here: "Declaration regarding publishing ethics".
The Editor-in-Chief of INiG – PIB Publishing or the deputy does initial verification of the specialist publication in terms of its compliance with the adequacy of the scientific disciplines represented by this publishing series. If the specialist publication does not meet these requirements, the author is asked to correct it or the work is rejected. Profile of INiG - PIB The Publishing House
After the Editor-in-Chief or his deputy has qualified the specialist publication for issuing, it is directed to the appropriate thematic editor who elects two reviewers. Reviewers are chosen from among recognized authorities in a given field.
The Editorial Secretary, after contacting the reviewers and obtaining confirmation of readiness to carry out a review of a given specialist publication, directs the work to them.
A reviewer receiving proposals for the preparation of reviews is required to assess their substantive competences and the possibility of making a review within a specified period.
The reviewer should carefully acquaint his/herself with the specialist publication to be reviewed and make every effort to reliably assess its substantive and cognitive value, as well as independence and innovation - according to the current state of the discipline of science represented by it, as well as the requirements for reviewers.
The review should be logically coherent and maintained in a material tone, it cannot be casual, and its conclusions should be clear and unambiguous.
The review should be unambiguously positive or negative. It is unacceptable to issue reviews consisting mainly of objections but ending with a positive conclusion.
The review is in written form and ends with an unambiguous conclusion - to allow the specialist publication to be published or rejected.
The reviewer sends a prepared review to the Editor's address, and then the Editorial Secretary:
• informs the author about its receipt (in the case of a review not requiring corrections or the need to introduce only minor editorial changes),
• directs it to the author who makes the required corrections, and in the case of comments with which he does not agree - he will prepare the answers to the reviewer's questions and send them to the Editorial with the corrected version of the manuscript.
• Next, the specialist publication together with all the materials is passed to the Editor-in-Chief or to his deputy who decides to qualify it for printing.
• In the case of two negative reviews, the specialist publication is sent back to the author with the information that the editors refuse to publish it. The author has the right to appeal against this decision.
Specialist publications accepted for issuing is sent by the Editorial Secretary for linguistic correction.
All these activities are carried out in cooperation with the author. The final version of the specialist publication, after its breaking, is sent to the author for the purpose of author's correction.
After the author's proofreading, the specialist publication is sent to print.
The above procedure of reviewing specialist publications of the Oil and Gas Institute - National Research Institute is in line with the recommendations of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education "GOOD PRACTICES IN REVIEWING PROCEDURES IN SCIENCE".