Reviewers for the journal "Materialy Budowlane"
Every scientific journal, including " Materialy Budowlane " is obliged to adhere to ethical principles in scientific publications, publishing high quality research papers and ensure the highest editorial standards. Observance of ethical principles, as well as responding to all forms of unethical conduct and scientific misconduct, it is expected equally to all participants in the process of publication: authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers.
Read: PRINCIPLES OF ETHICS in the journal " Materialy Budowlane " >>
The process of review of a research article is intended to support the Editor in Chief and Editorial Board to decide on its publication in the journal, and any indication of the authors of these elements in their work that need to improve or supplement.
1) The reviewer should objectively assess whether it can undertake the preparation of a scientific review article, taking account of the substantive scope and identified by the editorial staff of the time frame.
2) The reviewer can not undertake to prepare the review if it finds the existence of a conflict of interest arising for example. With financial, personal or business relationships with any of the authors, company or institution.
3) The reviewer must sign a Declaration of no conflict of interest.
4) Contributor treat all materials received from the Editor as confidential and without the permission of the Editors can not pass on information about them to third parties and does not use them in their scientific activity without the written consent of the authors.
5) Review should be prepared in such a way as possible objective, clear, with a clear recommendation, without personal references and criticisms supported by concrete arguments.
6) In the case of the presence of the article content with a high degree of similarity to those found in other publications, which knows reviewer should be informed of this circumstance Editor.
Reviewing procedure copyright material published in journals Publishing SIGMA-NOT
1. After qualifying as a scientific article in accordance with the profile of the journal, Editor-in-Chief shall choose two of Reviewers of the recognized authorities in the field, the selected reviewer - the best title of professor or doctor habilitated - must ensure:
- Independence of opinions,
- No conflict of interest, expressed in particular the lack of personal or business relationships with the author of this article,
- Confidentiality as to the content of materials and comments about them.
2. After selecting Reviewers, Editor-in-Chief directs them with a written offer, which shall be a description or abstract qualified to review and imposed the required scope of review and the date of its preparation.
3. After accepting the offer by the Reviewers, editors send them to the full text of the article requiring the review together with the form of review applicable to the Editor.
4. Reviewer's personal details are confidential and can only be declassified at the request of the author, and with the consent of the Reviewer in the case of negative review or article containing elements of the discussion. Once a year, editors publish in the journal full list of Reviewers, with which it cooperates.
5. Reviewer passes a review done in electronic form to the email address specified on the form Editors review. Upon receipt of the review, the Secretary Editor:
- Informs the author of its receipt (for review that does not require correction or the need to introduce only minor editorial changes)
- Directs the review contains critical comments to the author, who makes the required corrections, in the case of comments, with which he disagrees - is preparing a response to the review,
- Re-directs to the article reviewer after the introduction by the author changes - if the reviewer considers it necessary to re-review.
6. A final decision about printing a scientific article takes editors on the basis of the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article supplied by the author.
7. In the case of a disqualifying review article, Editor-in-Chief decides to reject the work or directs article to another reviewer. In the case of disqualification of two review articles, Editor-in-Chief rejects the job.
8. The final version of the article (after the break) is sent to the author.
9. Texts about unscientific nature do not require a review and are eligible for printing directly by the Editor in Chief to correct the author.
List external reviewers
prof. dr hab. inż. Marian Abramowicz – Szkoła Główna Służby Pożarniczej (Polska); prof. José Barroso de Aguiar – University of Minho (Portugalia); dr inż. Wacław Brachaczek – Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej (Polska); prof. dr ing. Luc Courard – Université de Liege (Belgia); prof. dr hab. inż. Józef Jasiczak – Politechnika Poznańska (Polska); dr inż. Agnieszka Klemm – School of Engineering and Built Environment Glasgow Caledonian University (Wielka Brytania/Szkocja); dr hab. inż. Arkadiusz Madaj prof. PP – Politechnika Poznańska (Polska); prof. dr ing. Christoph Motzko – Technische Universität Darmstadt (Niemcy); prof. dr ing. Piotr Noakowski – Exponent Industrial Structures (Niemcy/Düsseldorf); prof. dr inż. Andrzej S. Nowak – Auburn University (USA); dr inż. Anna M. Rakoczy – Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (USA); doc. dr hab. Wojciech Roszak – Lund University (Szwecja); dr hab. inż. Krzysztof Zieliński prof. PP – Politechnika Poznańska (Polska).