REVIEW PROCESS
The editorial team of the journal "CHEMISTRY → BIOTECHNOLOGY → ENVIRONMENT" conducts the review procedure for scientific articles following the Basic Principles of Reviewing Publications available on the MNiSW website. This means that the author(s) and reviewers are unaware of each other's identities (double-blind review procedure). Any critical comments from the reviewer(s) require a detailed response from the author(s) of the article. Correspondence between the author and reviewers is facilitated through the "CHEMISTRY → BIOTECHNOLOGY → ENVIRONMENT" Editorial Office. All accepted comments must be addressed in the manuscript's revision. In the case of conflicting comments, clear and unambiguous arguments pointing to the basis of the disagreement between the author and the reviewer are required. An article may proceed for publication with two unequivocally positive reviews.
**Review Form**
Title of the reviewed article: Scientific title (academic degree), name and surname of the Reviewer: Review date:
- Brief evaluation (please underline as appropriate)
- Is the title clearly formulated and consistent with the content of the article? YES NO
- Is the aim of the article clearly defined? YES NO
- Are the method, analysis, interpretation, and conclusions correct? YES NO
- Has the literature been appropriately selected and utilized? YES NO
- Is the article correct in terms of language and style? YES NO
- Reviewer's Decision (please underline as appropriate)
- The article can be published without the need for changes.
- The article can be published without additional corrections, but it lacks new solutions or interpretations; this spot should be reserved for another article.
- The article can be published after implementing the changes suggested by the reviewer.
- The article, in its current form, cannot be published. The text requires significant revisions, considering the reviewer's comments. After revision, the article will require reevaluation before a decision on its publication can be made. The reviewer should outline the problems and suggest ways to address them.
- The article cannot be published; there are no realistic chances of its revision. The reviewer should justify this decision.
- Detailed comments (if necessary)
