Publishing Procedure - Production Enginnering Archives

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur ad elit.
Morbi tincidunt libero ac ante accumsan.
Go to content
Publishing procedure and review procedure

Paper’s submission
1. The manuscript should be sent to the address: journalarchive@qpij.pl.
2. Papers which are submitted for a review should be in accordance with the journal’s template provided in section "For Authors" (https://pea-journal.eu/for-authors.html).
3. Only original materials, unpublished so far, not submitted for publication in another publishing house, without infringing any copyrights, legal and material interests of others within the meaning of the Polish Act of 4.02. 1994 on copyright and related rights (Dz. U. Nr 24, poz. 83), are accepted for publishing.
4. During the publication process, the publishing house respects publication ethic.
5. After reading the manuscript, the Editorial Board makes a decision regarding the further publication procedure (compliance of the manuscript with the journal's profile, its aims and scope).
6. Manuscript published by the publishing house must be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers (see review procedure).
7. Author(s) must refer to the review and take into account the reviewers' comments in their manuscript. In some cases, it is possible to convince reviewers to own idea.
8. The material in its final form is sent to the authors(s), in order to make the last author's correction (acceptance).
9. Before printing the publication, author(s) is required to sign the author's copyrights.


Procedure of reviewing the manuscript
1. The reviewing procedure is in line with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland.
2. After the publisher accepts the submitted material as compatible with the journal's profile, its aims and scope, one of the members of the Editorial Board selects two reviewers following the themes presented in the paper (in accordance with the double-blind review principle).
3. Selected Reviewers guarantee: independence of opinions, confidentiality of the substantive content of the materials as well as opinions about them, according to Policy of the publishing house. The Reviewer is independent and there is no conflict of interest.
4. The reviewer may prepare a review free of charge or for a fee (contract for specific work).
5. A review has writing form and ends with an explicit request for admission the paper to publish or the reject.
6. Publication reviews should contain at least the assessment of: adequacy of the publication title, clarity and correctness of the work structure, correctness of language, quality and usability of figures and tables, correctness and originality of the publication, correctness of the selection of quoted sources.
7. Personal details of the Reviewers are not public, and their declassification occurs only in special cases at the Author's request and with the consent of the Reviewer.
8. The reviewer submits the review of the manuscript via "Review system" available on https://pea-journal.eu/imlogin.php?loginstatus=-3. If the reviewer has problems with the online review system, he can prepare the review in a paper or electronic form and send it back to the publisher's address (review form is available on https://pea-journal.eu/for-reviwers.html).
9. In the case of a review not requiring corrections, or only minor editorial changes are needed, the publication may be prepared for publication by one of the members of the Editorial Board. The author(s) receives information about a positive review.
10. In case when Reviewer finds the necessity of introducing significant changes, the publication is sent to the Author(s) together with the comments of the Reviewer (results of the review) in order to make corrections. Author(s) is asked to prepare a response to the review
11. If the Author (s) disagrees with the Reviewer's position, he also prepares a response to the review.
12. The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is made by the Editorial Board based on a careful analysis of the comments contained in the reviews.
13. In the event of a negative review of the publication, the Editorial Board decides to send the manuscript to another reviewer or about its disqualification.
14. Non-scientific texts do not require a review and the Editorial Board decides about their qualification for printing.

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 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 the 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.


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
Back to content