For Reviwers - QPI Journal

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur ad elit.
Morbi tincidunt libero ac ante accumsan.
Quality Production Improvement
e-ISSN 2544-2813
Go to content
 Rules of review  

  1. Papers which are submitted for a review should  be in accordance  with the publication preparation guideline provided in "For Authors".
  2. Works which are submitted to the executive editor shall be assessed  by two independent reviewers.
  3. The Editorial Board chooses reviewers, following the themes presented in the article sent in for publication.
  4. The reviewer is independent  from the author of the reviewed work and there is no the conflict of interest.
  5. A review is in writing and ends with an explicit request for admission the article to publish or the reject.
  6. The review procedure is done with confidentially.
  7. 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


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


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)
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

Armii Krajowej 19B, lok. 504z
42-218 Częstochwa, POLAND
Back to content