Peer Review Policy

General information

Criteria for Publication

Scientific Agronomy Journal receives far more submissions than it is able to publish. Therefore, reviewers are asked to bear in mind that the acceptance of one manuscript necessarily means the rejection of another potentially strong submission. To be accepted for publication in Scientific Agronomy Journal, a manuscript must meet the following four general criteria:

• provide convincing evidence to support its conclusions;
• demonstrate originality;
• be of clear significance to researchers in the relevant field;
• ideally, be of interest to researchers in related disciplines.

Overall, an acceptable manuscript should represent a meaningful advance in understanding that has the potential to influence thinking within the field. There must be a clear and compelling reason why the work merits publication in Scientific Agronomy Journal.

The Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team. To conserve time for both authors and reviewers, only manuscripts that appear most likely to meet the journal’s editorial criteria are sent for external peer review. Manuscripts that are judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise unsuitable are rejected without external review, although such decisions may be informed by informal advice from subject specialists.

Manuscripts considered to be of potential interest to the journal’s readership are sent for formal peer review, typically to one or two independent reviewers. Editorial decisions are made on the basis of the reviewers’ recommendations.

Selection of Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is critical to the publication process. Reviewers are chosen based on a range of factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and prior experience working with the journal. The journal avoids inviting reviewers who consistently provide delayed, superficial, or insufficiently reasoned evaluations, regardless of whether their recommendations are favorable or unfavorable.

Potential reviewers are contacted prior to being sent a manuscript. All such communications contain confidential information and must be treated accordingly.

Writing the Review

The primary purpose for the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. The review should also instruct the authors as to how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed, constructive advice to the authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for the journal (as outlined in the letter from the editor when asking for the review). If the reviewer believes that a manuscript would not be suitable for publication, his/her report to the author should be as brief as is consistent with enabling the author to understand the reason for the decision.

Anonymity

The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors or to other reviewers, unless a reviewer explicitly requests to be identified. In the absence of such a request, the journal’s policy is to maintain reviewer anonymity throughout the review process and thereafter.

Peer Review Publication Policy

All manuscripts submitted to Scientific Agronomy Journal that are selected for peer review are evaluated by at least one, and usually two or more, independent reviewers appointed by the editors. Authors may suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request the exclusion of specific individuals or research groups. Such requests are considered carefully and are generally respected; however, the final decision regarding reviewer selection rests solely with the editor.

Ethics and Security

The editors of Scientific Agronomy Journal may seek expert advice on submitted manuscripts beyond technical peer review when concerns arise. These may include ethical issues, data or materials accessibility, or compliance with research standards. In rare cases, concerns may also relate to the broader societal implications of publication, including potential security risks. In such situations, consultation is typically conducted alongside the technical peer review process. As with all editorial decisions, the final determination regarding publication rests with the editor of the journal.