Review procedure

The Lublin University of Technology Publishing House makes every effort to ensure that published works are of a high scientific and editorial standard. An integral part of the publication process is a reliable and objective review (double blind) that presents the strengths and weaknesses of the work, contains remarks for its author(s) and indicates in the conclusion whether the work should be published or rejected.

In the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House, scholarly books that have been submitted by a publication proposal and that receive an ISBN number are subject to review.

Publications by the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House should comply with the profile of the University's scientific activity, and their author(s) should be employees of Lublin University of Technology or works should be closely related to Lublin University of Technology and its employees. In accordance with the above, the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House reserves the right to reject or qualify the book proposed in the submission of publication proposal for review.

The Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House is an Advisory Body assisting the publishing process in accordance with the regulations in force:

• a) The Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights (consolidated text of 24.01.2021, Dz.U.2021.0.1062.) (effective in Poland);
• b) Regulations of the Scientific and Technical Information Centre of Lublin University of Technology;
• c) Recommendations included in the document Good practices in review procedures in science, issued by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education in 2011;
• d) guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

a) Definition of a scientific monograph

According to the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 22 February 2019, a scientific monograph is a peer-reviewed book publication:

• presenting a specific scientific issue in an original and creative way;
• accompanied by footnotes, bibliography or other scientific apparatus appropriate to the field.

b) Qualifying monographs for the publishing process

The Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House, on the basis of the submission of a publication proposal for review and the completed manuscript of the work, qualifies the future publication to initiate the review procedure if it meets the following criteria:

• it has been approved by the Head of the Discipline and the Head of the Department;
• it is within the discipline declared by the author/authors.

c) Choice of reviewers

The Publishing House forwards the completed manuscript submitted by an author/authors, a formal publication proposal and suggestion of reviewers to the Representative of the Discipline to which the publication belongs. The Discipline Representative provides an opinion on the submitted manuscript. After giving a positive opinion about the manuscript, the Representative of the Discipline selects reviewers from those suggested by the author/authors or indicates them independently.

Reviewers for particular types of publications shall be selected according to the following rules:

• scientific monographs – 2 external reviewers;
• monographs based on doctoral dissertations – 1 external reviewer (in the case of a post-doctoral monograph submitted for publication after two years after the dissertation defense, it is necessary to update the work and appoint two external reviewers);
• commemorative works and other publications – 1 internal reviewer.

Discipline representatives shall select a reviewer who:

• does not have an employment relationship with Lublin University of Technology;
• holds at least a post-doctoral degree [1];
• is a recognized expert in a given scientific discipline;
• has no conflict of interest with the author(s);
• within the last five years preceding the preparation of the review did not take up direct scientific collaboration with the author/authors (direct scientific cooperation with the author(s) is understood as: joint publications, grants, patents, reviews in doctoral and professorial chairs);
• does not have close personal relations with author/authors;
• has an unblemished reputation as a reviewer.

The chosen reviewers should represent different organisations.

d) Acceptance of the publication proposal by the Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House

The Discipline Representative presents the publication proposal submission to the Council for review along with information about the selected reviewers. The Council votes whether to accept the publication proposal submission and the designated reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer does not agree to prepare a review, the Publisher shall notify the Discipline Representative of the need to identify another reviewer from those previously proposed by the author(s) or presented by the author. The Discipline Representative shall communicate the selection of the new reviewer to the Board.

---

[1] In case of a small group of specialists in a given field who hold at least a postdoctoral degree, the review may be entrusted to a researcher with a doctoral degree, in which case the author(s) should prepare and sign a statement to this effect.

a) Definition of a student monograph:

A student monograph is a publication containing a collection of articles written by students, under the supervision of an academician.

b) Qualifying monographs for the publishing process

The Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House, on the basis of the submission of a publication proposal for review and the completed manuscript of the work, qualifies the future publication to initiate the review procedure if it has been approved by the Head of the Discipline and the Head of the Department.

c) Choice of reviewers

The Publishing House forwards the completed manuscript submitted by an author/authors, a formal publication proposal and suggestion of reviewers to the Representative of the Discipline to which the publication belongs. The Discipline Representative provides an opinion on the submitted manuscript. After giving a positive opinion about the manuscript, the Representative of the Discipline selects reviewers from those suggested by the author/authors or indicates them independently.

A student monograph should have two reviewers, including at least one independent researcher who:

• is a recognized expert in the relevant scientific discipline;
• does not have a conflict of interest with the author/authors.

d) Acceptance of the publication proposal by the Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House

The Discipline Representative presents the publication proposal submission to the Council for review along with information about the selected reviewers. The Council votes whether to accept the publication proposal submission and the designated reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer does not agree to prepare a review, the Publisher shall notify the Discipline Representative of the need to identify another reviewer from those previously proposed by the author/authors or presented by the author. The Discipline Representative shall communicate the selection of the new reviewer to the Board.

a) Definition of an academic textbook:

An academic textbook is a publication that contains a synthesis of current knowledge in a particular field, tailored closely to the student's curriculum. The textbook should:

• take into account the methodological characteristics of the field in question in its contents;
• use the style and scientific apparatus characteristic of the field (use and explain the subject terminology, and use appropriate examples);
• include a bibliographic list of scientific and didactic positions, taking into account the most relevant and current publications in the field;
• have a coherent and hierarchical composition resulting from the issues addressed;
• present knowledge on an appropriate scientific and didactic level, as well as on a popularizing level, in order to make reading possible for students and researchers, but also for all persons interested in a given field;
• take into account the subject matter and the nature of the classes conducted at the university and provide assistance to students in preparing for classes and examinations, writing credit and diploma theses;
• have an ISBN number.

b) Definition of an academic workbook:

An academic workbook is a publication that constitutes a thematically coherent study in a given field. An academic workbook should:

• take into account the methodological characteristics of the field in their presentation of content;
• use the style and scientific apparatus characteristic of the field (use and explain the subject terminology, and use appropriate examples);
• include a bibliographic list of scientific and didactic positions, including the most relevant and current publications in the field;
• present a given topic in a narrow scope;
• organize and expand the student's knowledge acquired during classes and lectures;
• support the student's independent work.

c) Qualifying textbooks and workbooks for the publishing process

The Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House, on the basis of the submission of a publication proposal for review and the completed manuscript of the work, qualifies the future publication to initiate the review procedure if it has been approved by the Head of the Program Council of the Field.

d) Choice of reviewers

The Publishing House forwards the completed manuscript submitted by an author/authors, a formal publication proposal and suggestion of reviewers to the Representative of the Discipline to which the publication belongs. The Discipline Representative provides an opinion on the submitted manuscript. After giving a positive opinion about the manuscript, the Representative of the Discipline selects reviewers from those suggested by the author/authors or indicates them independently.

For the academic textbook and workbook discipline representatives shall select two reviewers who:

• don’t not have an employment relationship with Lublin University of Technology;
• hold at least a post-doctoral degree [1];
• are recognized experts in a given scientific discipline;
• don’t have a conflict of interest with the author(s);
• have not engaged in direct scientific collaboration with the author(s) in the last five years preceding the preparation of the review (direct scientific cooperation with the author(s) is understood as: joint publications, grants, patents, reviews in doctoral and professorial chairs);
• don’t have close personal relations with author/authors;
• have a unblemished reputation as a reviewer.

The chosen reviewers should represent different organisations.

e) Acceptance of the publication proposal by the Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House

The Discipline Representative presents the publication proposal submission to the Council for review along with information about the selected reviewers. The Council votes whether to accept the publication proposal submission and the designated reviewers.

In the event that a reviewer does not agree to prepare a review, the Publisher shall notify the Discipline Representative of the need to identify another reviewer from those previously proposed by the author(s) or presented by the author. The Discipline Representative shall communicate the selection of the new reviewer to the Board.

---

[1] In case of a small group of specialists in a given field who hold at least a postdoctoral degree, the review may be entrusted to a researcher with a doctoral degree, in which case the author(s) should prepare and sign a statement to this effect.

Reviewers preparing assessments of monographs and textbooks currently undergoing the publication process at the Lublin University of Technology Press are required to refrain from using artificial intelligence systems or other tools for the automatic generation of content. Preparing a substantive assessment and identifying areas for improvement in the peer review process go far beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence; moreover, there is a risk that this technology will generate erroneous conclusions.

Furthermore, reviewers should not input the manuscript or any part of it into artificial intelligence tools, as we do not know where these materials will be sent, how they will be processed, or how they may be used in the future. This may lead to a breach of copyright and/or data protection laws.

Publisher verifies reviews in terms of the use of artificial intelligence.

The review procedure is coordinated by the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House. Its responsibilities include:

• a) contacting with authors and reviewers;
• b) creating contracts and necessary documents used in the review procedure;
• c) checking whether the authors applied the reviewers' suggestions;
• d) presenting the results of the review to the author(s) and the Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House [2].

The review procedure is held under the rules of confidentiality. During this period, the content and conclusions of the reviews remain confidential to all outsiders, including the author(s).

After the complete set of reviews required by the procedure is collected and approved by the Publisher, they will be forwarded to the author(s) and all persons involved in the proceedings.

The author(s) of a publication proposal undertake to incorporate the reviewer's comments into their work. However, if they do not agree with the suggested changes, they should refer to them in a written response.

If the reviewer has decided that the work must undergo a re-review, the same reviewer may prepare it with no additional fee, if he/she agrees. If the reviewer does not agree to prepare a re-review, a new reviewer is appointed by a representative of the discipline. In this case, the honorarium for performing the re-review is the same as for the first review.

---

[2] In case of two divergent reviews, the Scientific Council of the Lublin University of Technology Publishing House decides on further steps of the review procedure.

• scientific publication review form
• submission of publication proposal for review
• Best Practices of the Reviewing Procedures
• COPE guidelines