Review procedures

Introduction

The publisher and editors of ‘Rail Vehicles/Pojazdy Szynowe’ are of the opinion that reliable reviews of academic papers have a considerable influence upon the level of practiced science, which constitutes the basis for scientific culture and a source of social authority of the scientific circles. With the aim to preserve the reviewing practice and the highest level reviewing procedures in ‘Rail Vehicles’ we have listed the most important principles of the reviewing procedure in our journal, which comply with the guidelines included in the document titled ‘Good Practice in Reviewing Procedures in Science’ as published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.
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.


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 his/her knowledge as proved by his/her considerable academic achievements, but also his/her reliability-proving renown

Independent opinions of reviewers

• The editors do not survey a reviewer’ 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 Author/Authors send their works to the editors in a file while the reviewer is provided with a file devoid of any identification data of the Authors.

The conflict of interest in the reviewing procedures

• The periodical editors ensure that the reviewer and the author of the reviewed paper are not related personally or occupationally or engaged in any close academic collaboration within two years preceding the year of preparation of a review. 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 his/her 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 periodical who is entitled to receive this type of information.
• 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.
• 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.
• Negative reviews by majority of the reviewers will result in disqualification of the reviewed paper. However, if the number of negative reviews constitutes half of all the reviews obtained in a given stage of reviewing or such reviews are in minority, but, still, there is more than one such review, the editors will appoint an additional reviewer.
• If reviews have been accepted, their conclusions will not be disregarded. However, the author may defend his/her theses presented in the reviewed paper, if he/she manages to show convincingly that the main remarks made by a reviewer are unfounded.
• Any recommendations made by the reviewer (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.

Irregularity and abuse in the reviewing procedures

• If scientific unreliability is found, the reviewing procedures will result in negative conclusions for those responsible for the unreliability.
• If during the reviewing process there are any incidents of slander or libel, which are detrimental to the author of the reviewed paper, the editors will make all the efforts in order to clear the injured party of unfounded allegations disclosing the same to the public.

Copyright
The author is kindly requested to provide to the editors a version of the paper supplemented with a statement informing that

• authors retain copyright in their articles, but grant Łukasiewicz Research Network - Poznan Institute of Technology as the Publisher of the Quarterly the right of the first publication
• the paper has not been published before
• it does not infringe any third parties’ copyrights
• author declares that he/she has read the above-mentioned provisions and accepts the same and the manuscript sent by him/her complies with the standards of academic correctness and reliability.

Sample statement when submitting an article:

• I certify that the submitted material (article, review, message) is original and does not infringe the
  rights of third parties
• The material has been prepared with respect for copyright; in particular, it does not include any
  elements of plagiarism, duplicate publishing, ghost-writing, guest authorship or honorary authorship
  
• I declare that the submitted material is not currently the subject of editorial consideration by another
  journal
• I agree to carry out the review procedure and to make any necessary changes to the material resulting
  from the editorial review
• I have read and accepted the rules for the publication of the works set out by the editors of the journal

The editors reserve the right to unmask and document any attempts to infringe standard principles of ethics in science and undertake to notify competent entities in case of such infringements.