Terms of review a scientific article published in Bulletin of the Institute of Welding

1. The articles are reviewed by the Program Council members;
2. The evaluation of an article is made by at least 2 independent reviewers outside the institution represented by author;
3. In case of articles written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated in the external institution other than author's nationality;
4. The reviewer cannot be both an author of the text published in the same number than the reviewed article;
5. The reviewer is obliged to sign a statement excluding conflict of interests between an author and reviewer, which is understood as:
   • Direct personal connection (family connection, law connection, conflict),
   • Superior - subordinate relation,
   • Direct scientific/research cooperation for 2 years before making a review;
6. The names of reviewers of particular publication are not revealed;
7. Bulletin of the Institute of Welding publishes a list of the reviewers once a year;
8. The terms of review a scientific article and the review form ale available to download below.

Review procedure

1. The author delivers the text of his article to the Bulletin's Editorial Board (electronic version);
2. Managing Editor turns the article over the reviewer, who is indicated by the Subject Editor;
3. The reviewer expresses the remarks, suggestions, including:
   • Accordance title to the content,
   • Accordance abstract to the content,
   • Innovations presented in the article,
   • Terminological correctness,
   • References' actuality,
   • Tables and pictures content;
4. After expressing the remarks the reviewer gives an opinion about:
   • Purpose to publishing the article in the original shape,
   • Purpose to publishing the article with the modifications,
   • Purpose to publishing the article in a short version,
   • Lack of purpose to publishing the article;
5. The Managing Editor delivers the reviewers opinion to the author;
6. The author refers to the reviewer's suggestions, accounts the remarks or consults it directly with the reviewer;
7. After considering reviewer's suggestions or after direct consultations between author and reviewer, the reviewer expresses the ultimate opinion (written) allowing the article to be published.