General information about reviewing
Construction of Optimized Energy Potential is a peer-reviewed journal.
The journal’s peer review procedure follows the principles recommended in:
Good Practices in Reviewing Procedures in Science
European Peer Review Guide. Integrating Policies and Practices into Coherent Procedures
Review procedure
- Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers who are not affiliated with the same scientific unit as the author(s).
- Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board according to their expertise and the subject area of the submitted manuscript.
- The journal applies a double-blind review process: authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities.
- Each review contains a clear recommendation regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
- The condition for qualifying the manuscript for further editorial processing is obtaining positive reviews; however, the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
- If the manuscript requires significant revisions, the revised version may be sent for re-review to the same reviewer or, if necessary, to another independent reviewer.
- In the case of one positive and one negative review, an additional independent reviewer is appointed.
- Two negative reviews generally result in rejection of the manuscript.
- Authors are informed of the review results and receive anonymised reviewers’ comments.
- Authors are required to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.
- The identities of individual reviewers are not disclosed.
- A list of reviewers who cooperated with the journal is published once a year on the journal’s website and in the printed issue.
Criteria for qualification or rejection of publications
Each article is evaluated by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
Each article is evaluated in terms of:
- compliance of the title with the content of the article
- compliance of the abstract with the content of the article
- originality and novelty of the presented problem
- correctness of the substantive content of the article
- compliance of the conclusions with the results of the research, simulations, or calculations presented in the article
- correctness of the selection and use of the literature
The Reviewers can indicate whether the article fully or partially meets the criteria presented above, or fail to meet them or indicate a variant according to the comments. Next, the Reviewers provide comments/information for Authors. It is possible to attach a PDF file with the comments of the Reviewers. The Editorial Board are obliged to pass the reviewers' comments via e-mail to the Authors. Finally the Reviewers indicate whether the article fully or partially meets the criteria presented above, or fail to meet them or indicate a variant according to the comments.
Recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief
The review contains the reviewer’s recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief regarding the conditions of acceptance of an article for publication or its rejection:
- Accept without changes
- Accept after minor revisions
- Reconsider after major revisions
- Reject
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Additional information for reviewers
- Reviewers undertake to observe the principles of publication ethics in the preparation of their reviews:
- Reviewers must agree to the processing of their personal data entrusted to the Editorial Office of the journal.
- Reviewers must confirm that they have read the Privacy Policy available on the journal’s website.
- Reviewers must declare that they have not used generative or AI-assisted tools in preparing the review and that they accept full responsibility for its content.
- Reviewers are requested to respond to the invitation as soon as possible, even if declining, in order to avoid delays in the editorial process.
- If a reviewer declines the invitation, it is appreciated if they suggest alternative qualified experts.
- Reviews should be prepared objectively, professionally, and constructively. Comments should be clear, constructive, and supported by appropriate arguments so that authors can improve their manuscript.
- Comments addressed to authors must not contain any identifying information, including the reviewer’s name.
- In addition to comments intended for the authors, reviewers may provide confidential comments to the Editorial Board.
- Each reviewer receives a certificate confirming the completion of reviews within a given calendar year.
Review form
The review form is provided for informational purposes only. The review should be submitted online to the Editorial Office via the journal’s website from the Submit review panel.
In justified cases, a review may be submitted to the Editorial Office by e-mail.
Review Form
List of reviewers
General List of Reviewers
List of Reviewers in 2022
List of Reviewers in 2023
List of Reviewers in 2024
List of Reviewers in 2025
Politechnika Częstochowska uczelnią dostępną.
