Publishing procedure and review procedure

For potential authors of the monograph
1. Potential authors of the publication should contact directly with the Of. Wyd. SMJiP, to discuss the rage of the service.
2. The manuscript should be sent to the address: journalarchive@qpij.pl.
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 Only original materials, unpublished so far, not submitted for publication in another publishing house, without infringing any copyrights, legal and material interests of others within the meaning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 accept for publishing.
4. During the publication process, the Of. Wyd. SMJiP respects publication ethic.
5. After reading the manuscript and discussing the rage of the service, the publisher makes a decision regarding the publication of the received material.
6. If the material for publication is prepared by the author(s), he (they) must take into account the requirements set out in the contract with the publisher.
7. Author(s) can request additional services in the form of preparing material for printing. Then he (they) sends the material without formatting according to the publisher's requirements.
8. After receiving the material and determining the rage of the services, the publisher specifies the price of the publication.
9. Materials published by the publishing house must be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.
10. Author(s) must refer to the review and take into account the reviewers' comments in their manuscript. In some cases, he can convince reviewers to his idea.
11. Before sending to the printing house, the material is sent to the author(s), in order to make the last author's correction (acceptance).
12. Before printing the publication, author(s) is required to sign the author's copyrights.

For potential authors of articles in the journal
PEA
QPI
AWI

Procedure of reviewing the monograph
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 profile of the publishing house, one of the members of the Editorial Board selects two reviewers in the given scientific areas (in accordance with the double-blind review principle).
3. In the case of texts written in a foreign language, one of the reviewers will be a person affiliated with a foreign institution other than the nationality of the author(s) of the work.
4. 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 Of. Wyd. SMJiP.
5. The reviewer may prepare a review free of charge or for a fee (contract for specific work).
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. In case of the monograph, the reviewer submits the prepared review in a paper or electronic version to the publisher's address. In case of the article, the reviewer submit the review 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 use the prepare the review in a paper or electronic form and send it back to the publisher's address.
9. In the case of a review not requiring corrections, or the need to introduce only minor editorial changes, the publication may be prepared for publication by one of the members of the Editorial Board. In case when Reviewer finds the necessity of introducing significant changes and re-reviews, the publication is sent to the Author(s) together with the comments of the Reviewer in order to make corrections. If the Author (s) disagrees with the Reviewer's position, he prepares a response to the review.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Non-scientific texts do not require a review and the Editorial Board decides about their qualification for printing.

Manuscript’s qualification / rejection criteria
The review must end with an unambiguous conclusion of the Reviewer regarding the to the approval of the manuscript 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.