For reviewers

All texts published in the journal are reviewed by two external reviewers. The journal uses the single-blind method, which means that the authors do not know reviewer’s identity. Reviewers are appointed by the editor. For more specific information about the Assessment process of the manuscript click here. 

The review form is available here.

Guidelines for Reviewers:

1. Reviewers are asked to respond to the request for review they have received within 14 days, regardless of whether they agree to review the article or for some reasons (insufficient qualifications, lack of time, conflict of interest) cannot undertake the review.
2. Reviewers are requested to complete their review within the specified deadline indicated in the inquiry (typically 3 weeks, unless otherwise agreed upon with the Editorial Board).
3. The review should not be a summary of the article. The review must provide a well-reasoned decision regarding the publication of the article, identify types of errors present in the text, and offer recommendations for corrections. Additionally, if the reviewer has annotated the original manuscript with comments, this should be mentioned in the review.
4. Eligibility and rejection criteria for articles:

• • relevance of the paper's topic to problems of computer applications in production engineering, economy and management, technology, or biomedical engineering;
  • compliance of the title and abstracts with the subject matter of the article;
  • compliance of conclusions with the presented results in the article;
  • correctness and novelty of the applied research methods;
  • correctness of the work layout, language, style, units and terminology;
  • adequacy of attached drawings and tables;
  • correctness of quotations and timeliness of the presented state of knowledge.

5. The review should be performed on the provided form. There is a possibility of attaching a file with comments to the work.
6. The review must end with a clear conclusion concerning the article.
7. Reviewers are asked to confirm the absence of conflict of interest before starting a review.
8. Reviewers should be guided by the rules described in the Ethical principles.
9. At each stage of the work, as well as after the review, the reviewer is obliged to immediately notify the editorial office of any suspected improper conduct, unethical behaviour or plagiarism (auto-plagiarism).
10. The reviewer does not use the AI to make decisions requiring critical thinking or creating any other substantive opinion about the manuscript.
11. In a situation where the article receives one positive and one negative review, the editorial office sends the article to the third review or makes the independent decision whether to accept or reject the text.