List of Reviewers

 

prof. zw. dr hab. inż. Józef Bendkowski (WOiZ PŚ)

dr hab. inż. arch. Marcin Brzezicki (WA PWr)

dr inż. Kaźmiera Ćwiek-Ludwicka (PZH),

dr hab. Tomasz Głowiński

prof. UWr, dr hab. inż. Stefan Jakucewicz, prof PW (WIP IMiP PW)

prof. dr hab. inż. Svitlana Havenko (IPiP PŁ i Ukrainian Academy of Printing, Lwów)

prof. zw. dr hab Elżbieta Kościk (UW)

prof. zw. dr hab. inż. Jerzy Lewandowski (WOiZ PŁ i WZ PW)

dr hab. Romuald Łuczyński, prof. Wyższej Szkoły Bankowej we Wrocławiu

prof. zw. dr hab. Dariusz Markowski (ZKiRSN)

prof. dr hab. inż. Józef Matuszek (AT-H w Bielsku-Białej)

dr hab. inż. Izabela Modzelewska (ZP Ekorol)

prof. dr hab. inż. Olena Velychnko (NTTU of Ukraine)

dr hab. n. o. zdr. Małgorzata Pawlaczyk-Łuszczyńska, prof. IMP (ZZF, IMP)

prof. dr hab. Georgij Petriaszwili (WIP IMiP PW)

prof. dr hab. inż. Halina Podsiadło (WIP IMiP ZTP PW)

prof. František Potûček (University of Pardubice)

dr hab. inż. Yuriy Pyr’yew, prof. PW (WIP IMiP PW)

prof. Dominik Sankowski (IIS PŁ)

dr hab. inż. Włodzimierz Szewczyk, prof. PŁ (IPiP PŁ)

dr hab. inż. Maciej Szumigała, prof. PP

 

 

The procedure of reviewing scientific and research articles

in “Przegląd Papierniczy”

 

1) After qualifying the scientific article as consistent with the profile of the journal, the Editor-in-Chief choses two Reviewers from among recognized authorities in a given field and the selected Reviewer - with the academic title of professor or postdoctoral degree – must guarantee:

- independence of opinion,

- no conflict of interest, in particular  expressing the lack of personal or business relationships with the Author of the article,

- maintaining confidentiality as regards the content of the materials and opinions about them.

2) After selection of the Reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief sends a written offer to them, accompanied by a description or summary of the article qualified for the review specifying at the same time the required scope of the review and the date of its preparation.

3) After the acceptance of the offer by the Reviewers, the Editorial Office sends them the full text of the article requiring a review together with the review form.

4) Reviewer's details are confidential and may be declassified only at the request of the Author and with the consent of the Reviewer in the case of a negative review or article containing questionable elements. Once a year, the Editorial Board publishes a full list of  Reviewers with whom they cooperate.

5) The reviewer submits the review in electronic form to the editors' e-mail address provided on the review form. After receiving the review, the Editorial Secretary:

- informs the Author about its receipt (in the case of a review not requiring corrections or the need to introduce only minor editorial changes),

- directs a review containing critical remarks to the Author who makes the required corrections, and in the case of comments with which he disagrees - prepares a response to the review,

- re-direct the article to the Reviewer after the changes have been made by the Author - if the Reviewer finds the necessity of the re-review.

6) The final decision about the publication of a scientific article is made by the Editorial Board based on the analysis of the remarks contained in the review and the final version of the article provided by the Author.

7) In case of one review disqualifying an article, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision to reject the work or directs the article to another Reviewer. In case of two reviews disqualifying the article, the Editor-in-Chief dismisses the work.

8) The final version of the article (after DTP) is sent to the Author.

 

Evaluation form (do pobrania PDF)