Only the articles, which obtained positive reviews, will be published.

Steps of reviewing procedure
  1. The procedure of reviewing articles is in accordance with the recommendations described in the brochure “Good practices in reviewing procedures in science”.
  2. Authors, delivering their articles for a publication in the magazine, express their consent to have their articles reviewed.
  3. Delivered articles are subject to a general assessment by the Editorial Office and then they are evaluated by reviewers.
  4. At least two independent reviewers, employed at different institutions than the author/authors are appointed. The reviewers guarantee independent opinions, lack of conflict of interest, lack of personal and business relationships with the article authors and observing the confidentiality principles.
  5. The recommended form of a review is a model, in which the author/authors do not know their identities (so called “double – blind review process”).
  6. The results of the review are sent directly to the author/authors, and then it is possible to correspond with the Editorial Office as regards probable remarks or a qualification for publishing.
  7. The review is presented on the Review Form. The reviewer delivers a signed review in which he states explicitly that the article is approved for a publication or that it is rejected.
  8. The final decision about a qualification for a publication is taken by the Editorial Staff.
  9. On the website there is a list of reviewers collaborating with the magazine Editorial Office (Recenzenci – Reviewers).

The Editorial Staff of the “Mining Machines” Quaterly expresses gratitude to all the reviewers for taking duties of reviewing scientific and technical articles. We would like to thank you for your clear-sightness, scrupulosity and punctuality of delivering reviews. Your reviews guarantee keeping high level of our publications and support a scientific development of many authors who publish in our magazine.

Information for reviewers

The Editorial Office kindly asks Reviewers for a punctual preparation of reviews and for delivering them to the Secretary or the Editor-in-Chief. The form can be collected: Article Review Form [doc]


he principles of the publication ethics of the “Mining Machines” Editorial Office are based on the best guidelines in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for editors of magazines.

In the case of any suspicion of the fraud or neglect connected with the research process, a preparation of the text and its publication, the magazine Editorial Office uses the means aiming at an elimination of such behaviour.

The procedures applied by the Editorial Office encompass, for example, a request for an explanation, a rejection of the article. In the case when it lacks the authors’ explanations as regards the suspisions, the Editorial Office can apply for assistance to the institutions dealing with such issues.