Monthly magazine of the Federation of NOT Scientific and Technical Associations

30th edition of the Golden Engineer poll

Review rules

  1. After qualifying a scientific article as compatible with the profile of the journal “Technical Review”, the Editor-in-Chief selects two Reviewers from among recognized authorities in the field, where the selected Reviewer must guarantee:
    • independence of opinion,
    • The absence of conflicts of interest, expressed in particular by the absence of personal or business relations with the Author of the article,
    • maintain confidentiality as to the content of the materials, as well as opinions about them.
  2. Once the Reviewers have been selected, the Editor-in-Chief shall address a written offer to them, to which he shall attach a description or summary of the article qualified for review, specifying at the same time the required scope of the review and the deadline for its preparation.
  3. Once reviewers accept the offer, the Editor sends them the full text of the article requiring review along with the review form.
  4. The Reviewer’s personal information is confidential and can be declassified only at the request of the Author and with the consent of the Reviewer in the case of a negative review or an article containing questionable elements. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes in the journal a complete list of Reviewers with whom it cooperates. The double-blind review model is preferred.
  5. The reviewer forwards the prepared review in electronic form to the editor’s email address. After receipt of the review, the editorial office informs the Author of its receipt (in the case of a review that does not require corrections or the need to make only minor changes of an editorial nature), directs the review containing critical comments to the Author, who makes the required corrections, and in the case of comments with which he disagrees – prepares a response to the review, re-directs the article to the Reviewer after the Author has made changes – if the Reviewer finds it necessary to review again.
  6. The final decision to publish a scientific article is made by the Editor on the basis of the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.
  7. In the case of one review disqualifying the article, the Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the work or refers the article to another Reviewer. In the case of two reviews disqualifying the article, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the work.
  8. The final version of the article (after breaking) is sent to the Author, for author’s correction.
  9. Texts of a non-scientific nature do not require review and are qualified for publication directly by the Editor-in-Chief for author’s correction.


Komentuje Waldemar Rukść