Peer Reviewing Process and Information for Reviewers
The EPI Publishing House directs the manuscript submitted by the Author(s) for scientific review to specialists in a given scientific discipline, who have a degree of Ph.D. D.Sc. or higher. The selection of Reviewers may include the list of potential Reviewers, whose were indicated by the Author(s) of the manuscript in the application for publication.


Information for Reviewers
Standards and rules of the peer reviewing process:

  • The manuscript submitted to the Publisher is subject to evaluation by at least two independent Reviewers, who are not affiliated with the institution of the Author(s).
  • Each review must be reliable and diligent, must possess integrity and must meet the substantive and formal requirements.
  • The review is prepared in written form. Conclusions from the review are presented using the review form (link), approved by the Editorial Board. The content of the review form is set out in Appendix 1. Each review ends with the Reviewer’s recommendation for publication of the manuscript, the necessity for corrections in the manuscript accordingly to the remarks made by Reviewer, or rejection of the manuscript.
  • The review form prepared by the Reviewer shall be handed over to the Author(s), who shall then, within 14 days from the receipt, make the corrections accordingly to the remarks reported in the review procedure.
  • In case of disputes, the Editorial Board has the right to appoint an additional Reviewer from among scientists who meet the criteria set out in point 2. This applies in particular when manuscript receives one negative review and one positive, which makes it impossible for the Editorial Board to take a decision on acceptance the manuscript for publishing.
  • Reviewers are entitled to re-examine the revised text.
  • The formal criteria for accepting or rejecting the manuscript for publication are contained in the Publishing Contract.
  • The Editorial Board takes a decision on accepting the manuscript for publication based in the gathered opinions of the Reviewers.
  • The final decision on qualification or rejection of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the Institute of Energy Policy.

Duties of the Reviewer include:

  • Ensuring that there is no conflict of interest between him and the Author(s) of the reviewed manuscript.
  • Timely execution of the commissioned review. The Reviewer shall immediately inform the publisher of any difficulties in meeting the deadline.
  • Confidentiality. Reviewer may not disclose the reviewed works to any persons who are not involved in the publishing process.
  • Objective assessment of the manuscript supported by appropriate arguments.
  • Immediate notification to the publisher of excerpts from the manuscript that are suspected of being scientifically unreliable and having indication of similarities with other publications and bearing signs of plagiarism.

Process of preparing a review:

  • The review must be prepared in written form and must end with an unambiguous opinion on whether the manuscript was or was not approved for publication.
  • The review assesses the substantive level of manuscript, originality of the theses and legitimacy of the research undertaken, methodology, correctness of formulated conclusions and the manner of its implementation.
  • The review should be fair, objective, reliable, constructive, knowledgeable and timely made.
  • The Reviewer is obliged to disclose possible plagiarism, suspicion of plagiarism or unnecessary (duplicated) publication as well as shortcoming of cited data (data manipulation).
  • The Reviewer is obliged not to provide information about the content of the publication to unauthorised persons.
  • In the case of a negative or ambiguously positive Reviewer’s assessment, the Publisher has the right to refuse to publish the submitted manuscript.