For Reviwers

Rules of review

Papers which are submitted for a review should be in accordance with the publication preparation guideline provided in "For Authors".
Works which are submitted to the executive editor shall be assessed by two independent reviewers.
The Editorial Board chooses reviewers, following the themes presented in the article sent in for publication.
The reviewer is independent from the author of the reviewed work and there is no the conflict of interest.
A review is in writing and ends with an explicit request for admission the article to publish or the reject.
The review procedure is done with confidentially.
The reviewing form is located in the "Review form" (after receiving the login and password)

If the reviewer has problems with the online review system, you can use the review form and send it back to the editors' address.

link to the review form: Word.docx

Manuscript’s qualification / rejection criteria

A review form (online, login required) is available on the website of the journal. The review must end with an unambiguous conclusion of the Reviewer regarding the to the approval of the article for publication or its rejection. The reviewer can specify in the review form whether the article should be:

published without revision,
published with minor revision,
published with major revision,
re-reviewed again after revision,
rejected.

If there is a need of revision, the author(s) is obliged to correct the text, introduce additions and changes required by the Reviewers. After the revision, the Editors decide about manuscript’s publication.

If the Reviewer in the review form indicated that the manuscript after the revision should be re-review, the manuscript after authors’ correction is again subjected to the review process by the same Reviewers.

In the case of one negative review, the Editors choose a third Reviewer. In the case of two negative reviews, the manuscript is rejected.

List of Reviewers

	2019
Prof. Martina Blašková, University of Zilina Dr hab. inż. Katarzyna Halicka, Prof. PB – Politechnika Białostocka Dr inż. Katarzyna Midor – Politechnika Śląska	Prof. Martina Blašková, University of Zilina Dr hab. inż. Katarzyna Halicka, Prof. PB – Politechnika Białostocka Dr inż. Katarzyna Midor – Politechnika Śląska	doc. Ing. Silvie Brožová, Ph.D. – VSB – Technical University of Ostrava Dr inż. Magdalena Mazur – Politechnika Częstochowska prof. dr inż. Tomasz Lipiński, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski
	2018
Dr hab. inż. Katarzyna Halicka, Prof. PB – Politechnika Białostocka Dr inż. Katarzyna Midor – Politechnika Śląska	doc. Ing. Pavlína Pustějovská, Ph.D. – VSB – Technical University of Ostrava Dr Marta Niciejewska – Politechnika Częstochowska Dr inż. Artur Woźny - Politechnika Rzeszowska	doc. Ing. Silvie Brožová, Ph.D. – VSB – Technical University of Ostrava Dr inż. Magdalena Mazur – Politechnika Częstochowska
	2017
Adam Torok (HU) Agnieszka Bitniowska (PL) Atul B. Borade (IN) Brožová Silvie (CZ)	Dorota Klimecka-Tatar (PL) Ferdynand Romankiewicz (PL) Magdalena Mazur (PL) Pavlina Pustejovska (CZ) Artur Woźny (PL)	Renata Stasiak-Betlejewska (PL) Radomila Konečná (SK) Witold Biały (PL) Zinowiy Blikharskyy (UKR) Bożena Skotnicka-Zasadzień (PL)
2016	2015	2014
dr hab. inż. Tomasz Lipiński, prof. UWM* dr hab. inż. Norbert Radek, prof. PŚk* dr hab. inż. Jacek Pietraszak, prof. PK* dr hab. inż. Elżbieta Weiss, prof. WSFiZ*	dr hab. inż. Artur Bartosik, prof. PŚk dr hab. inż. Tomasz Lipiński, prof. UWM* Prof. zw. dr hab. Bolesław Rafał Kuc Assoc. Prof., PhD. Martina Blašková*	dr hab inż. Szymon Salamon, prof. PCz. dr hab inż. Tomasz Lipiński, prof. UWM* Prof. zw. dr hab. Bolesław Rafał Kuc Assoc. Prof., PhD. Martina Blašková*
* The reviews for the day of the review were not members of the Scientific Committee of the Quality Production Improvment Journal Article reviews in the years 2014-2017 as part of reviews of scientific papers of the International Conference Quality Production Improvment