Acta Scientiarum Polonorum
Silvarum Colendarum Ratio et Industria Lignaria

The procedure of reviewing

1. Each publication is evaluated by editor-in-chief and if the basic requirements are fulfilled the text is sent to review.
2. We have therefore decided that the criteria for acceptance must be rigorously enforced to ensure quality. Two key questions authors (and reviewers) must ask themselves are:
   • Is the paper an addition to knowledge?
   • Is it of interest to an international audience?
     If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the paper wall not be deemed suitable for publication. If, however, the answer to both these questions is yes then the paper will be subjected to rigorous scientific review.
3. Each publication is evaluated by at least two independent Reviewers.
4. If the text was written in a foreign language, at least one of the Reviewers is affiliated in a foreign institution, which is different than the Author’s nationality.
5. The double-blind review process is applied, where neither the Authors nor the Reviewers know each other’s identities.
6. The review is a written document, which ends with a definite conclusion whether the article should be published or rejected.
7. The following evaluation criteria and procedures are applied:
   • A – very good article – accept
     The article is accepted for printing without sending back to the Author. The Author receives a message about the positive review.
   • B – good article – accept when the Reviewer’s comments have been fulfilled
     The article is sent back to the author to make changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author resends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the editors. The Editor-in-Chief makes a decision whether the article should be accepted for printing
   • C – acceptable after general reconstruction
     The article is sent back to the Author to make general changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author sends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the Editors. The Editors send the article for another review. The Author may be committed to pay extra costs of the review of the corrected article.
   • D – poor – the article should not be published in Acta Scientiarum Polonorum
     The article is not accepted for publication and cannot be resent to the Editors.
8. Every year a list of reviewers collaborating with the Editors is published in the last (fourth) issue of the quarterly and on the website, when all the four issues of the journal have been sent to printing.