| ..: MAIN MENU :.. |
| Register |
| Login |
| Reviewer |
| Focus and Scope |
| Editorial Team |
| Indexing |
| Contact |
| ..: SUBMISSION :.. |
| Author Guidelines |
| Submit Paper |
| Open Access Policy |
| Author Fees |
| ..: PUBLICATION :.. |
| Peer Review Process |
| Publication Ethics |
| Copyright Notices |
| Archiving Policy |
| Crossmark Policy |
| AI Tools Policy |
| Plagiarism |
| ..: ARTICLE TEMPLATE:.. |
|
|
| ..: INFORMATION :.. |
| Readers |
| Authors |
| Librarians |
| ..: TOOLS :.. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| ..: STATISTIC VIEWS :.. |
|
|
Review Process
Agrofera: Agronomical Journal is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field of agronomy and agricultural sciences.
1. Initial Submission Check
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment to ensure that the manuscript:
- Fits the journal’s scope
- Follows the author guidelines
- Meets basic academic and language standards
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to authors or rejected without further review.
2. Plagiarism Screening
All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools.
Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding acceptable limits (generally above 20%) or containing plagiarism will be rejected.
3. Editorial Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance, novelty, and scientific contribution. Only manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to peer review.
4. Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
- Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers
- Reviewers are selected based on expertise relevant to the manuscript
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
- Originality and novelty
- Methodological rigor
- Clarity of presentation
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Contribution to scientific knowledge
6. Review Decision
Based on reviewers’ comments, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Reject
7. Revision Process
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments within the specified timeframe.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.
8. Final Decision
The final decision on manuscript acceptance is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of revisions.
9. Publication
Accepted manuscripts will undergo copyediting, proofreading, and layout formatting before publication.
10. Review Timeline
The journal aims to complete the review process within:
- 2–4 weeks for initial review
- 4–8 weeks for final decision
11. Ethical Standards in Review
The peer review process follows ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) are expected to uphold confidentiality, objectivity, and integrity.
12. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Information about the manuscript is not disclosed to anyone other than those involved in the review process.
