Peer Review Policy

Scientific materials (articles and reports) submitted to the Editorial Board of the journal "Drewno" undergo a double-blind review process assuring the anonymity of the author and the reviewer. After a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Board, once the collegial decision has been made, the text is given to a reviewers.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject any scientific text without giving substantiation, if it is thematically unsuited, lacks quality or presents the results incorrectly. For issuing of a review on each publication, the editors appoint at least two independent reviewers who are not affiliated with an academic institution of the author of the publication.

Any discussion between the author and the reviewer is conducted through the agency of the Editorial Board. Once the author takes into consideration the reviewer's remarks, the scientific paper is sent for final approval.

Selection of reviewers

Depending on the issues addressed in a given academic paper, the editors select reviewers by their competence and experience in a given field. The indicator of competence of a reviewer is not only their knowledge as proved by his/her considerable academic achievements, but also their reliability-proving renown. Upon compilation and acceptance of complete reviews by the chief editor of the periodical, the chief editor will inform all persons competent to make any decisions related to the reviewing procedure about the conclusions of the reviews and, in particular, relevant remarks appearing in the reviews, including positive reviews.

Independent opinions of reviewers

The editors do not survey a reviewer’s opinion or consult him/her on the contents of a reviewed paper, before the preparation of a review and during the reviewing process. A decision of a reviewer whether to review a paper by a specific date will be made based on abstract of the paper to be reviewed as provided by the editors. A candidate for a reviewer is free to make a decision whether to accept or reject a paper for review. The editors do not provide a reviewer with the entire paper as at the moment of inviting him to review it.

The principle of double anonymity in reviewing procedures

In order to ensure the highest level of reliability and unbiased nature of the reviewed papers, the editors apply a double blind principle in the reviewing procedures. The reviewer is provided with a paper devoid of any identification data of the Authors.

The conflict of interest in the reviewing procedures

The Editorial Board ensures that the reviewer and the author of the reviewed paper are not related personally or occupationally or engaged in any close academic collaboration. Additionally, the reviewer cannot have any reporting relationship or close personal relations, including, in particular, by way of affinity with the author of the reviewed paper. A supervisor should not review works prepared by their subordinate. A deviation from this principle is admissible only if there is a very narrow circle of specialists available in a given field.

Confidentiality in the reviewing procedures

During the reviewing process and until preparation of the final review, the contents and conclusions of a review are not disclosed to any third parties. It is only the Editor in Chief of the "Drewno" journal who is entitled to receive this type of information. Upon compilation and acceptance of complete reviews by the Editor in Chief, who will inform all persons competent to make any decisions related to the reviewing procedure about the conclusions of the reviews and, in particular, relevant remarks appearing in the reviews, including positive reviews. All persons participating in the procedure will be obliged to adhere to the principle of confidentiality as regards confidential information, to which they have been given access.

Disputes in the reviewing procedures

In cases of any disputes or complicated cases, the editors will appoint additional reviewers and will respect opinions of all reviewers properly. If reviews have been accepted, their conclusions will not be disregarded. However, the author may defend their theses presented in the reviewed paper, if they manages to show convincingly that the main remarks made by a reviewer are unfounded. Any recommendations made by the reviewers relating to correcting of the reviewed paper in a specified manner will be considered by the editors and consulted with the author of the paper. Nonetheless, the Editor in Chies is responsible for the final decission regarding acceptance or rejection of articles.