For the reviewers of the monthly „Materiały Budowlane”

Each scientific journal, including „Materiały Budowlane”, is obliged to observe ethical principles in scientific articles, to ensure the highest possible substantive and editorial level, as well as to respond to any manifestations of unethical conduct and scientific misconduct. This attitude is expected equally from all participants in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers and publisher.

The process of reviewing a scientific article is intended to support the Editorial Office in making a decision to publish it in the journal and, if necessary, to indicate to the Authors those elements in their work that need to be corrected or supplemented.

Responsibilities of the Reviewer

The process of reviewing a scientific article is intended to support the Executive Editor and the Editorial Office in deciding to publish it in the journal and, if necessary, indicate to the Authors those elements in their work that need to be corrected or supplemented.

1) The Reviewer should objectively assess whether they can undertake a review of a scientific article, taking into account its substantive content and the time frame indicated by the Editorial Office.

2) The Reviewer treats all materials received from the Editorial Office as confidential and without the Editorial Office’s consent, can not convey any information about them to third parties, and shall not use them in their own scientific activities without the written consent of the Authors.

3) The review should be prepared as objectively and clearly as possible, with an unambiguous recommendation, and critical comments supported by specific arguments, without personal references.

4) If the content of a high degree similarity to the content of other publications that the Reviewer knows is found in the article, the Reviewer should inform the Editorial Office about this fact.

Review procedure for scientific articles

1. After qualifying a scientific article as compatible with the journal’s profile, the Editorial Office selects two Reviewers from among recognized authority figures in a given field, and Reviewer must be selected in a way that guarantees following points:

– independence of opinion,

– no conflict of interest, in particular by no personal or business relations with the Author of the article,

– confidentiality regarding the substantive content of the materials and opinions about them.

2. After the Reviewers are selected, the Editorial Office sends them a written offer, to which the Editorial Office attaches a description or summary of the article qualified for the review, specifying at the same time the required scope of the review and the date of its submission.

3. After accepting the offer by the Reviewers, the Editorial Office sends them the full text of the article, along with the review form applied by the Editorial Office.

4. The Reviewers’ and Authors’ personalities are confidential (double blinded). The Editorial Office publishes a list of the Reviewers with whom it cooperates in the journal.

5. The Reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the Editorial Office’s email address provided on the review form. After receiving the review, the Editorial Secretary:

– informs the Author about its receipt (in the case when a review does not require corrections or when the article requires only minor editorial changes),

– passes the review with critical comments to the Author, who makes the required corrections, and in the case of comments with which the Author does not agree – prepares a response to the review,

– passes the article back to the Reviewer after changes made by the Author – if the Reviewer sees a need for re-review.

6. The final decision to publish a scientific article is made by the Editorial Office based on the analysis of the comments contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.

7. In the case of disqualification of the article in the review, the Editorial Office decides to reject the article or passes the article to another Reviewer. In the case of two reviews that disqualify the article, the Editorial Office rejects the article.

8. The final version of the article (after breaking) is sent to the author.



prof. Jose Barroso de Aguiar – University of Minho (Portugalia); dr inż. Grzegorz Bajorek – Politechnika Rzeszowska (Polska); dr hab. inż. Wacław Brachaczek, prof. ATH – Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej (Polska); prof. dr ing. Luc Courard – University of Liege (Belgia); prof. dr hab. inż. Łukasz Drobiec – Politechnika Śląska (Polska); dr hab. inż. Barbara Francke, Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego (Polska); prof. dr hab. inż. Jozef Jasiczak – Politechnika Poznańska (Polska); dr inż. Agnieszka Klemm – School of Engineering and Built EnvironmentGlasgow Caledonian University (Wielka Brytania/Szkocja); dr inż. Ołeksij Kopyłow – Instytut Techniki Budowlanej (Polska); prof. dr hab. inż. Paweł Łukowski – Politechnika Warszawska (Polska); dr hab. inż. Arkadiusz Madaj – Związek Mostowców Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (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); doc. dr hab. Wojciech Roszak – emeryt, Lund University (Szwecja); dr inż. Iwona Szer – Politechnika Łódzka (Polska); prof. dr hab. inż. Adam Wysokowski – Uniwersytet Zielonogórski (Polska); dr hab. inż. Krzysztof Zieliński, prof. PP – Politechnika Poznańska (Polska).