The Reviewing Procedure

    All texts submitted to our Editorial Office go through the following procedure – according to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Reviewers are required to sign a declaration of no conflict of interest. The following relationships between the reviewer and the author are considered as conflicts of interest:

1. direct personal relationships, in particular kinship up to the second degree or marriage, 
2. relations of professional subordination,
3. direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the year in which the review was prepared.

If a reviewer presumes the identity of the author of an article and there is a potential conflict of interest, the reviewer shall immediately inform the journal's editorial board.
The Editor share e-mail addresses of authors for possible discussion.
Every complaints and appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief.
The names of reviewers are not published and are a secret of the Editorial Office.
Members of the redaction can't do the review of the manuscripts.

Reviewing rules:

 1. Preliminary evaluation and qualification by Subject Editors.
Each text submitted to the Editorial Office is transferred to the appropriate subject editor for preliminary approval. He would assess if the paper conforms to the scope of our Quarterly, as well as evaluate its merit. Moreover, the subject editor will suggest the names of the potential reviewers. After positive qualification the paper goes to the second stage of the procedure.

2. The paper is then forwarded to two independent reviewers, who are experts in particular field and do not remain in official relationship with the Author(s). In case of publications of engineering-technological nature – it is reviewed by one reviewer only.
A "double-blind review process" is used according to the abovementioned guidelines.

3. After receiving two review sheets (electronic version and one original signed by the reviewer), the Secretary hands them over to the Subject Editor. The Author is then informed by the Subject Editor about possible remarks and reviewer's alterations the Author should make in the text. Should the Author disagreed with certain remark, he is under obligation to substantiate his position and submit it to the Editorial Office.

4. Should one of the reviewers approve the paper for publication while the other did not, the paper may be passed as fit for publication after unanimous decision of the Editorial Board.

5. The paper – in its final shape (with possible reviewer's remarks) is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief, who decides on its publication.