Paper review procedures

Initial evaluation of the article
After receiving the text and checking it for authorship and compliance with the publishing profile and meeting formal requirements, the Editor-in-Chief decides to:
- rejection of the article - if the article is not consistent with the profile of the journal;
- reference to supplement – if the article requires minor supplements;
- further processing - if the article meets all formal requirements and is consistent with the subject of the journal;
In the next step, the article is subject to anti-plagiarism assessment using the "iThenticate" system. Depending on the plagiarism assessment, the following decisions are made:
- similarity index >= 30% - the article is rejected;
- similarity index >20% - the article is sent for correction by the authors;
- similarity index <=20% - the article is subject to further evaluation. Obtaining a similarity index >=20% allows the Editor-in-Chief to further evaluate the article and appoint a section editor who is responsible for the further evaluation process of the journal. The scientific interests of the Section Editor should correspond to the topic of the article being assessed.

Appointment of reviewers
The journal operates in a double-blind review system. This means that the authors' names are not disclosed to the reviewers and the names of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewers are selected the principle of avoiding conflict of interest (an example of a conflict of interest is a personal relationship between the Reviewer and the Author, professional subordination, and direct scientific cooperation in the last two years before the review).
After getting acquainted with the subject of the article, the Section Editor appoints at least 2 reviewers to whom a request to perform a review is directed. In this request, the potential reviewer receives information about the topic of the article, its summary and keywords. The reviewer has 7 days to accept the invitation to review, and if there is no response within 5 days, a reminder is sent. After accepting the invitation, the reviewer has 21 days to leave a review; if there are no reviews, a reminder about the lack of reviews is sent 14 days after accepting the invitation.
While waiting for reviews, the Editor may appoint further reviewers, especially if the previously appointed reviewers do not respond to the invitation.
Reviewers may request an extension of the review deadline.
It is important that Reviewers respond in a timely manner after receiving a review request, especially if they are unable to complete the review. This avoids unnecessary delays in the process.

Preparing reviews
Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest (if in doubt, seek editorial advice) and have sufficient knowledge in the field to accurately evaluate the work.
Reviewers are obliged to keep all information regarding the content of the manuscript confidential.
Reviewers' comments should be objective and constructive. The review is in writing and ends with a clear recommendation to accept, correct or reject the article for publication.
Criteria used by Editors and Reviewers when assessing manuscripts:
1. Reviewer's declaration
2. Do you detect plagiarism in the manuscript?
3. Is the English writing acceptable?
4. Some parts of manuscript content can be generated by AI (text or graphics) and the authors have not indicated it in the text of the manuscript or in the references?
5. Does the subject of the manuscript fall within the thematic scope of the Diagnostyka journal:
6. Is the abstract adequate to the content of the manuscript and clearly indicates its most important achievements or findings:
7. Newness of the manuscript?
8. The significance of the obtained result?
9. Methods, statistical analysis and data quality?
10. Presentation of results?
11. Quality of discussion?
12. Does the manuscript meet ethical requirements?
Selecting NO in point 1 is tantamount to rejection of the manuscript and ends the evaluation procedure.
The Section Editor makes a decision about publication after receiving at least two reviews from reviewers.
Depending on the reviewers' recommendations, the section editor decides to:
acceptance of the article without corrections - if all reviews are clearly positive;
- acceptance of the article after minor corrections - the reviews are positive, but at least one of the reviewers suggests minor corrections;
- sending the article back for correction and re-review - if at least one of the reviewers suggests the need for changes to the article and re-review;
- rejection of the article - if the reviews are negative;
- in the event of major discrepancies in the reviews, the Section Editor may appoint additional reviewers;
This stage of article evaluation ends with the section editor's recommendation about:
- adoption of the article without amendments;
- acceptance of the article after the authors' corrections;
- the need to improve the article and repeat the review of the corrected article;
- rejection of the article;

Correcting articles after review
After the recommendation Section Editor, the Editor-in-Chief makes a decision in accordance with the recommendation of the Section Editor and immediately forwards it to the authors along with the reviewers' comments. The editorial office requires authors to prepare responses to the reviewers' comments, which are then sent to the reviewers if the reviewers suggest the need to re-evaluate the article in the first review. At this stage, the Section Editor may appoint further reviewers.
If at least one of the reviewers suggests rejection of the article or the need to review it again, the Section Editor decides to reject it.
If the reviewers suggest the need for further minor corrections, the section editor recommends sending the article back for correction.

Final decision to accept the article
After receiving the section editor's recommendation to accept the article without corrections or the reviewers suggested minor corrections without the need for a second review and these corrections were made by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief decides on the initial acceptance of the article.
The corresponding author receives information about the initial acceptance of the article and information about the need to pay a fee.
The Polish Society of Technical Diagnostics, the publisher of the Diagnostyka journal, charges a fee solely to maintain the journal in the "Open Access" format. Publishing a journal is not a source of income for the publisher.
After receiving information about the payment (what matters is the confirmation that the funds have been credited to the publisher's account), a decision is made about the final acceptance of the article.

Article publication process
After the final acceptance of the article by the Editor-in-Chief, the article is forwarded to the editorial team, which is responsible for the final preparation of the article for publication. At this stage, it may sometimes be necessary to contact the editors with the authors to supplement or correct the data.
After the final formatting of the article, the article is sent to the corresponding author with a request for its final approval.
Final acceptance of the article by the corresponding author completes the article publication process. The article is published on the journal's website in the "Online first" tab and then assigned to the appropriate issue of the journal and transferred to the "Archive" section.