About the Journal

The journal "Safety Engineering of Anthropogenic Objects "  has an interdisciplinary profile. It deals with the issues of widely understood safety of technical objects created by man for the realization of his or her various needs. That includes building objects, which is the basis of human life environment. Due to the high durability of anthropogenic technical objects, they shape the safety conditions of human life for many years.

Safety engineering embraces the knowledge of methods of shaping technical objects in order to make them safe. This is understood as the process of designing and applicating these objects into the reality. Thus, this must be proceeded in an accordance with the principles of safety during their subsequent usage and maintenance too. 

Safety Engineering of Anthropogenic Objects bases on the idea of making the objects resistant to all of the threats that are possible occur. In such a way, it should exclude or minimalise the risk of danger that may be generated by the surroundings of the object and by the object itself. This should take into account not only the inital moment of the existence of the objects (the creation) but also the subsequent stages of their usage, including the last, that is dismantling.

Safety Engineering of Anthropogenic Objects consists of the interdisciplinary, general technical and specialist knowledge. Furthermore, the ability of adopting the principles of safety engineering to legal regulations is necessary.

The journal presents technical, legal, organizational and economic cases that deal with the problems of safety in general. Actually, such problems may occure during the designing, implementation and usage of anthropogenic facilities. Subsequently, the journal may also function as a convenient way of exchanging knowledge and experience, especially including the issues of monitoring the safety condition facilities, e.g buildings. taking into account the principles of building diagnostics, including the performance of technical studies and periodic inspections of buildings.

Selection of reviewers

  1. The choice of a reviewer is based primarily on his or her competence in a given branch.
  2. Not only a proofed scientific output of an academic and his or her knowledge is taken into consideration whilst choosing a reviewer, but also his or her reliability.
  3. Any intentions of revenge, including financial offers or promises of future co - operations are forbidden.
  4. In case of strong and substantative disputes issuing a particular area which may be related to the subject of the article, these disputes shall not affect the procedure of reviewing.

 Review preparation agreements

  1. In case of paid publications, the agreements are signed. This is to provide the high standard of reliability and detaility of reviews. The conclusions shall relevant to th be credibile as much as it is possible
  2. While evaluating papers based on empirical research, the editorial office is obliged to provide an access to the materials that accompany the research.
  3. The right not to accept the review is reserved. The review should meet the arrangements already made. Subsequently, it must be compatibile to all legal regulations, especially those that determine some duties of the reviewer.
  4. The deadlines for the review are determined by the extent of the tasks assigned to the reviewer. That is to avoid waiting for submitting the the review. 

Independence of reviewers' opinions

  1. The content of the review will not be consulted before publishing a review.
  2. Before receiving the draft of an agreement or an article, the future reviewer is obliged to inform whether he or she will be able to provide a review of the article in a particular period of time.
  3. The information concerning the content of any article (e.g table of contents, introduction, abstract etc.) that the reviewer is to examine should be provided previously by the editors.
  4. A candidate for a reviewer is free to decide whether he or she accepts or rejects an article for review.
  5. The editorial staff will not send the entire article to the reviewer before submitting an agreement between the editiorial and the reviewer.

The principle of double anonymity

1.In order to maintain the principles of reliability and objectivity the editors apply the principle of double anonymity in the procedures of reviewing.

  1. The Author(s) should send two variations of the papers: the first one should contain information about the Author(s), whilst the second should be deprived of any data (including the list of literature and references to his or her previous papers). The other variation of a paper should include only one notation as it follows: [Author].

Conflict of interest

  1. The reviewer and the author of the reviewed work should not keep a personal, professional or business relationship. Additionaly, the reviewer may not be a relative of the author of a paper.
  2. The superior should not review the work of his or her subordinate. This may be ommited only if the particular branch lacks of specialists.


  1. It is taken for granted that the payment is relevant to the effects that are expected by the editorial office as well as to the effort that reviewer made.
  2. The payment for a review is determined by an agreement made between the future reviewer and the editorial office.


  1. The content of the review (including conclusions) will remain secret until the final review is prepared. The only person who may be acknowledged with them is the chief editor of the journal.
  2. After the chief editor collects all of the reviews, he or she is going to inform all of the people who make decisions issuing the particular reviewing procedure. This may also include information about: the conclusions of a given review, the objections as well as positive remarks related to the article.
  1. The reviewer may remain unknown to the readers of our journal if he or she wishes to.
  1. Scientific reviews in an area that remains under the supervision of local authorities are public. However, some elements of them will be kept in secret. All of the people who gave an impact to such reviews are required to stay restrained because of the secret information they have already obtained. They should also be restrained to any other information that may cause the rumours and excitement. 

Irregularities and possible threaths

  1. If the disagreement occurs, the editors will appoint subsequent reviewers. However, the editiorial board is going to take into consideration the opinion of all reviewers of a given article.
  2. The majority of negative reviews to the given paper will result in disqualification of it. Nonetheless, if the number of negative reviews constitutes half of all reviews already sent or if they constitute a minority; still, if there is more than one negative review, the editors will appoint an additional reviewer.
  3. The accepted reviews will not be ignored. However, the author of the reviewed article may defend his or her paper, especially if he or she is able to prove that the criticism of the reviewer is unjustified.
  1. The suggestions given by the reviewer will be considered by the editorial office and transferred to the author of the article. Short after the corrections will be made, all reviewers own the right to review the article again.

The competence of reviewers

  1. The specialist who has already accepted a proposal to prepare a review should not withrdaw his or her offer; taking into consideration .
  1. The competence of the specialist embraces his or her knowledge of the basic literature concerning the discpilne which he or she belongs to as well the knowledge that the article being reviewed refers to. The reviewer should be also familiar with the current statements of the discipline that he or she represents .
  1. While preparing a paper, the reviewer should be aware that he or she may be responsible for the vital interests of the author(s) of the articles that are being reviewed by him or her.

Conflict of interests

  1. A specialist shall not become a reviewer in some circumstances. Those may be: a conflict of interests between the author and the reviewer or a premise that the one is likely to happen.
  1. Subsequently, such a case may be possible only if the variety of of specialists in a particular study is not extensive enough to choose another reviewer.

Formal duties of a reviewer

  1. A specialist who has already agreed to proceed a review of an article should not cancel his or her decision. Some extraordinary circumstances may be taken into consideration, e.g fortuitous events or the conflict of interest that is likely to arise.
  1. If, short after signing an agreement, the reviewer states that the or she is not experienced enough to write a review, the contract may be cancelled. Then, the explanation is needed. The refusal may not be influenced by the risk of forming negative review that the reviewer would like to avoid. Such suspicions shall be excluded.
  1. Whether the reviewer states that the paper he or she received does not qualify for the review, negative conclusions will be established. Then, such a case will not be treated as a refusal of forming a review. Subsequently, the negative conclusions may not be the only component of a review. Moreover, the one must include an appropriate justification for the statements that are to disqualife the paper.

The principles of fairness and honesty

  1. The basic requirement expected from the reviewer is his or her neutrality. The justice is the basis.
  1. The reviewer must be acknowledged with the paper that he or she is already reviewing; it should be read thoroughly and carefully. Each and every effort should be given in order to judge the professional and cognitive value of a paper; its innovation and indivutality should be appreciated as well. Moreover, the current statetements and the requirements of the scientific discipline the reviewer represents should be taken into consideration by the reviewer. Subsequently, the international acadamic princples as well as the legal regulations (including the contract already signed) should be respected by him or her.
  1. The reviewer shall posses the knowledge that is not obsolete in a particular discipline. Subsequently, he or she should should have his own achievements already documented. The requirements that are imposed on the reviewer by the procedure of reviewing should be also clear and understood.
  1. While the review is being prepared, the reviewer is obliged to abide the contract that has been signed. Legal regulations should be also considered, if such determine the obligations of the reviewer.
  2. The reviewer is obliged to form an opinion whether the paper he or she reviews is innovatory. He or she may not avoid the expression of his or her opinion even if it is going to be negative. The reviewer should also notice an input to the science in a paper that he or she is already reviewing.
  1. The reviewer should determine the degree of independence of the author of the work that is being under reviewing procedure. The possible – secret borrowings and plagiarism should be detected. At the same time, it is not the reviewer's duty to investigate whether the paper he or she is working on abuses the principle of intellectual property.
  1. The plagiarism and so – called secret borrowings occur only when may be noticed while comparing the works of widely known specialists to the work that is being reviewed. This may also happen when the papers that are being reviewed resemble the papers that have been published recently; especially those that gave a significant impact to the science.
  1. Any plagiarism detected or any other kind of abuse noticed should result in a negative conclusion of the review.
  2. The initaiton of reviewing procedure is possible in order to present the advantages of a given paper by one reviewer; then, the second one is obliged to express its drawbacks only. In such a case, the reviewers will not be required to stay neutral. However, they still should be deprived of dishonesty or malicity; at the same time flattery should be also excluded.
  1. Some properties of the review such as its extent or formal and stylistic features may be determined by the prevailing academic habits that are mayor in a given discipline. However, some bad practises should be distinguised (e.g. overestimating or underestimating the language mistakes that may occur in the reviewed works).

The coherence and substantiality of the reviews

  1. The review prepared for the magazine should be consistent and proceeded using scientific methods. It should be precise; still, it should be deprived of disambiguity.
  1. The review should be honest and reliable.
  2. The review should meet the principles of typical procedures (occasionaly defined by the editors of the journal)
  1. It is accepted to send the reviews that are partly positive. In such a case, the office may demand the ammendtments to the article. Henceforth, the re-evaluatation of the article review is compulsory.
  1. It is unacceptable to send a review that bases on accusations only but eventually ends positively. Likewise, biased reviews are also forbidden. The evaluation that bases on emotions, malicity or flattery will be also unaccepted.

The coherence and substantiality of the reviewers

  1. The review of an article should pe preapred on time. Subsequently, a principle of discretness should be held: no consulting or informing other reviewers is accepted.
  1. The review should be prepared and sent within the deadline. Whether the deadline cannot be met, the reviewer is obliged to contact the chief editor of the journal in order to set a new deadline as soon as it is possible.
  1. While preparing the review, the reviewer should not observe the people that work on the same paper. If it happens circumstancially, despite of his or her knowledge, he or she should not consult them in any possible way, and, in particular, should not inquire them about the anticipated conclusions of their review.