The publishing house of the Higher School of Agribusiness in Łomża, established by the Senate, has been operating since 1997.

The aim of the publishing house is to:

  • documenting and disseminating the scientific achievements of the University’s scientific and teaching staff and students’ scientific activities,
  • publishing conference and seminar publications,
  • publishing textbooks, scripts and teaching materials useful during studies.

The Publishing House publishes Scientific Monographs, Scientific Notebooks, Conference and Seminar Materials, Scripts and manuals, Didactic Materials, Studies and materials on broadly understood social, technical, natural, medical and economic issues. Published publications are reviewed; each article is reviewed by at least two reviewers and receive an international publishing number, thus making it available to bibliographic databases and lists around the world. Publications on websites in electronic form provide broad access and ease of use in educational activities. It should be added that the broad subject matter of these publications results, among others, from the fields of study pursued, i.e. agriculture, commodity science, construction, computer science and nursing.

The primary departments grouping the publishers are:


 Dr inż. Ireneusz Żuchowski  –

Editorial board
dr hab. Andrzej Borusiewicz prof. Uczelni – Vice Editor-in-Chief

Prof. dr hab. Ryszard Zadernowski – Assistant editor
Prof. dr hab. Uladimir Skorina
Prof. dr hab. Bronisława Śeljuto


  1. In order to ensure the highest quality of publications, the Publishing House of the Higher School of Agribusiness in Łomża has adopted the following obligatory procedure of peer review/evaluation of scientific works.
  2. Scientific papers submitted for publication in the Publishing House are subject to an internal publishing review procedure and an external/scientific review procedure.
  3. The procedure of reviewing scientific monographs or monographs edited by the Publisher is consistent with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science, and Higher Education developed in the form of the brochure “Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science”, Warsaw 2011.
  4. The procedure of an internal review of a submitted work consists of the following stages:
    • a blunt assessment of the typescript by the Editorial Staff in terms of compliance with formal conditions under editorial requirements.
    • The following criteria are taken into account in the internal review:
      • choice of subject: the subject matter of the text is scientific, the content of the text is consistent with the subject matter;
      • the scientific significance of the work: the text is original concerning the state of the art, the subject matter or methodology is innovative or makes a significant contribution to state of the art;
      • substantive correctness of the work: the text is correct in terms of its substance, is based on the current legal status and correctly quotes the content of the provisions and views, the chosen methodology has been applied correctly, the text is rhetorically correct, and the logic of the argument is correct;
      • the importance of the topic developed by the author for the development of a given field of science in Poland;
      • The scientific level of the work in comparison with other scientific works published so far by the Publishing House.
    • A work will not be accepted for further stages of the publishing procedure if the content of the monograph does not correspond to its title, there are factual errors, the text is not original, the developed bibliography is superficial and insufficient for works in a given field, the work constitutes the elaboration of an issue which is not of interest to the Publisher. In case of lack of acceptance – the author of the work is informed of the fact that the work has not been accepted for publication.
  5. The external procedure for reviewing a submitted work consists of the following stages:
    • Scientific work is reviewed by two independent reviewers appointed from among scientific employees of entities not employing the Author of the scientific work.
    • The selection of a reviewer or reviewers is made by the Publishing House. The author may object in this respect. The decision in this respect shall be taken by the Publishing House.
    • External/scientific review is an extensive review (both reviewers and authors know their personal data) ends with an unambiguous conclusion as to acceptance of the paper without amendments, acceptance of the paper after the required amendments have been made or rejection of the paper.
  6. Reviewers evaluate the work based on the following criteria:
    • choice of subject: the subject matter of the text is scientific in nature, the content of the text is consistent with the subject matter;
    • the scientific significance of the work: the text is original concerning the state of the art, the subject matter or methodology is innovative or makes a significant contribution to state of the art;
    • factual correctness of the work: the text is correct in terms of its substance, is based on the current legal status and correctly quotes the provisions, the chosen methodology has been applied correctly, the text is rhetorically correct, and the logic of the argument is correct.
  7. The author receives the results of the review. If the review contains a recommendation that the work is accepted into the publishing plan after certain amendments have been made, the author is obliged to introduce them.
  8. If it is necessary to introduce amendments to the scientific work, the reviewer shall formulate an assessment together with an opinion as to which elements of the paper should be improved.
  9. If a review or one of the reviews is negative, the text shall be rejected.
  10. The review must be in writing and must contain an unambiguous proposal to allow the publication of the monograph in question.
  11. A positive review qualifies the monograph for further editing and publication.
  12. The Editorial Secretariat sends the results of the review and any reviewer’s recommendations concerning the introduction of necessary changes to the work to the Author’s e-mail address.


The review must be in writing and must contain an unequivocal proposal to allow or reject the monograph for publication. The review should be performed on the review sheet in force in the publishing house.

Review printout WSA Publishing House

The assessment of the subject of the review and its value must be objective, issued with full responsibility, i.e. based on generally accepted criteria, reliably justified and well thought out.


  1. The author, by submitting the paper to the Publishing House, is obliged to deliver it:
    • a letter to the Director of the Publishing House requesting the commencement of the publishing process, together with an indication and confirmation of the source of financing for the publication of the monograph,
    • computer printout (text and illustration material) – 2 copies,
    • printable version of electronic work (CD, PENDRIVE).
  2. After the initial verification of the monograph by the Secretary of the Publishing House, a publishing agreement is signed between the Author and the Publishing House.
  3. The publishing process starts with the indication of the scientific editor of the monograph by the editor-in-chief. The scientific editor shall not be the same as the person whose work is being edited (in the case of collective monographs).
  4. The Scientific Editor prepares and sends the Publisher a preliminary opinion on the monograph. The editorial board appoints 2 reviewers from 2 different scientific entities outside the author’s home institution.
  5. The condition of publication is obtaining two positive written reviews. The author introduces amendments required by the reviewers and presents the final version of the work to the scientific editor.
  6. The scientific editor shall prepare the final opinion qualifying the paper for publication and send it to the secretary of the editorial office.
  7. The author submits to the editorial office the final version of the scientific monograph, 1 printed copy, electronic version in the Word program, final opinion of the scientific editor and a set of dependent copyrights (placing in the monograph fragments of texts, illustrations, drawings, diagrams, tables, etc., coming from other works will be possible provided that the prior written consent of the copyright owner is provided by the author to the Publisher).
  8. The final opinion of the scientific editor and the complete set of reviews shall be submitted to the editor of a given scientific discipline.
  9. Editorial proofreading includes proofreading, proofreading, computer composition and author’s proofreading.
  10. After approval by the author of the final version, the monograph is submitted for printing. The procedure may, of course, be modified. For example, in case of a negative review, the work may require sending it to a new review or appointing a new reviewer. In case of introducing by the author of a monograph subsequent changes after the approval of the final version (item 10), the costs of these changes shall be borne by the author of the monograph.
  11. The publisher does not pay the author’s fee.
  12. The Publishing House reserves the right to reject the text in case of inadequate quality of text composition or graphic design as well as errors in the text.
  13. The author(s), published in the Publishing House, are obliged to provide 20 copies of the Publishing House’s published publication in order to send the obligatory copies to libraries, under Article 3 (5) of the Act of 7 November 1996 on obligatory copies of libraries.


 The publishing house of the Higher School of Agribusiness in Łomża applies the highest publication standards and is guided by the principles of ethics in its mission.  In the event of scientific misconduct, we apply the standards and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 Useful links:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Procedures to deal with suspicion of unnecessary (duplicate) publication


  1. The Editorial Board monitors the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against abuse of the publication.
  2. Submitted manuscripts shall be evaluated based on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship or political ideology.
  3. The editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted publications/monographs should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject a publication is based on its meaning, originality, transparency and impact on the development of science in the discipline.
  4. The Editorial Committee shall ensure that all manuscripts submitted to the publishing house remain confidential during the review. No information about the manuscript sent may be disclosed to any person other than authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, scientific editors and the Scientific Council.
  5. Unpublished materials in the submitted manuscript may not be disclosed by the publishing house without the written consent of the authors.
  6. Editors shall safeguard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and appeals as necessary and by bringing about suspicion or alleged misconduct in research and publication. Plagiarism and false data are unacceptable.
  7. The editors are always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, withdrawals, and apologies if necessary.
  8. The publisher will consider withdrawing the publication if: there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data production) or a fair error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error); the materials have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-reference, permission or justification (cases of unnecessary publication); and are plagiarised or report unethical research.


  1. The authors of the original study should provide an accurate description of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The primary data should be presented in detail in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to duplicate the work. Producing results and making misleading or inaccurate statements constitutes unethical behaviour and may result in rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript.
  2. Authors should make sure that they have written entirely original works, and if authors have used the work and/or the words of others, they must be quoted. Plagiarism and false data are unacceptable.
  3. Authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review, should be prepared to make such data publicly available, and should be prepared to retain such data for an appropriate time after the publication of their work.
  4. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the report investigation. All contributors should be listed as co-authors.
  5. Appropriate acknowledgement of the work of others should always be given. Authors should quote publications that have had an impact on the extent of the reported work.
  6. Fundamental errors in published works: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her published work, it is the author’s responsibility to immediately notify the editor or publisher to withdraw or correct the work.


  1. Any selected reviewer who does not feel adequately qualified to review the manuscript studies or who knows that timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and justify the review process.
  2. All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They may not be shown or discussed with anyone else except those authorised by the editor.
  3. Opinions should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their views through appropriate supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been mentioned by the authors. Any significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published publication should be reported to the editor.
  5. Preferential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not for personal gain. Reviewers should not undertake to review manuscripts in which there are conflicts of interest arising from competitive relationships, collaboration or other relationships with any author, company or institution involved in manuscript writing.

Good practices of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education 2011

Integrity in research and respect for intellectual property

COPE guidelines


Good practices of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education 2011

Integrity in research and respect for intellectual property

COPE guidelines

Wyższa Szkoła Agrobiznesu w Łomży
Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Agrobiznesu w Łomży
ul. Studencka 19
18-400 Łomża
Tel./Fax +48 (086) 216 94 97

Dr inż. Ireneusz Żuchowski


Analiza potrzeb techniczno-technologicznych oraz propozycje rozwiązań w produkcji biogazu w gospodarstwach rodzinnych i farmerskich (569.1 KiB)

Analiza rozwiązań technologicznych chlewni dla gospodarstw rodzinnych i farmerskich (279.3 KiB)

Analiza rozwiązań technologicznych obór wolnostanowiskowych dla bydła mlecznego (300.6 KiB)

Dylematy Bezpieczeństwa Zewnętrznego I Wewnętrznego RP (150.5 KiB)

Innowacujne rozwiazania technologiczno-budowlane w chowie trzody chlewnej (237.0 KiB)

Innowacyjne rozwiązania technologiczno-budowlane w chowie krow mlecznych (1.6 MiB)

Międzynarodowe normy prawne w zakresie zwalczania terroryzmu (305.1 KiB)

Nowoczesne systemy pozyskania energii -biogazu (236.0 KiB)

Obrona I Ochrona Narodowa (148.7 KiB)


Uprawa Gleby I Produkca Nasion Lnu (350.3 KiB)

Wielowymiarowość Obszarów Bezpieczeństawa II (954.7 KiB)

Wielowymiarowość Obszarów Bezpieczeństwa I (322.8 KiB)

Współczesne zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa publicznego o podłożu kulturowym (753.3 KiB)



Istnieje możliwość zakupu monografii w cenie 45zł/szt. oraz skryptów w cenie 15zł/szt.