For Reviewers


scientific articles, implementation reports and conference materials

in the Journals
"Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute "
"Plant Breeding and Seed Science"

The journals publish scientific and implementation articles, as well as conference materials. The procedure for reviewing articles is in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education presented in the study "Good practices in review procedures in science", Warsaw 2011:

The contents published in journals are prepared with care for a high editorial and substantive level.

Publication of the article in journals is payable. The condition of accepting the article is payment of PLN 100.00 to the account of Instytut PEKAO SA IO / Błonie No. 54 1240 2164 1111 0000 3561 7204. Please send the payment confirmation to the address: Editorial Office of the IHAR Bulletin, Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization in Radzików, 05870 Błonie , or to the e-mail address: 

The payment of PLN 100.00 partially covers expenses related to editorial work. The fee is not refundable. The fee does`nt apply to employees of the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute.

  1. The reviewing process begins when the request for publication is sent to the editorial office, with the text of the Scientific article, implementation article or conference materials, and attachments: photo boards, tables and figures. The content of the paper should be sent in electronic form, in Word for Windows format, to the following e-mail address: l , or by post to the following address: Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization - National Research Institute in Radzików, 05-870 Błonie.
  2. Published content will be available on CC BY-SA 4.0 licence in open access on the journal's website.
  3. The author(s) undertake, by submitting a request for publication, to
    a) comply with the publisher's Code of Ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Committee. If there is a suspicion of unethical activity, conflict of interest, scientific misconduct, or failure to observe good practice in science, the editors take the steps provided for in the guidelines of the publisher's Code of Ethics.
    b) consent to the article being made available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, in open access on the journal's website,
  4. Submitted publications are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, who directs the article to the responsible Thematic Editor. If the article is inconsistent with the journal's profile or if it`s incompatible with the instructions for the Authors, it is returned to the Authors (the first or to the correspondence Author).
  5. After qualifying the article, the Editor indicate two Reviewers, from among recognized authorities, who have the necessary knowledge, experience and who represent the relevant scientific field; selected Reviewers must guarantee: independence of opinion, no conflict of interest and the lack of personal or business relations with the authors of the article. 
  6. After Reviewers have given their consent to accept an article for review, the editorial staff shall send the full text of the article to Reviewers together with the review form binding in the editorial office. The Journals uses " double -blind review process " system.
  7. The review takes place in the "double-blind review process".
  8. The reviewing process is conducted in a privacy policy. Reviewers' names are latent. They can be released at the author's request, only with the consent of the Reviewers.
  9. The reviewers submit the review and review form to the editorial office. The review must include an unequivocal conclusion that the article is admissible for publication or rejected.
  10. The Authors are informed about the results of the review. Authors should respond to the Reviewer`s comments and return a corrected article no later than one month after receiving the review. 
  11. If, in the opinion of Reviewers ,the article requires significant changes, the article, after corrected by the Authors, is sent for re-review to the same Reviewers.
  12. Positive reviews are imperative for qualifying the work for publishing process, including technical and language editing.
  13. In cases of disputes, the editorial office indicate additional Reviewers.
  14. Once a year, the editorial office publishes a list of Reviewers in a given year.
Files to download: