Peer-review process

Regulation on the review

of scientific and theoretical, scientific and practical journal “Agrology”

General regulations.

1.1. The reviewers are world’s leading specialists in a sphere of a manuscript: practicioners, workers of corporations, scientific workers of universities, etc.

1.2. The purpose of review is improving the quality of scientific papers and other materials by objective and impartial evaluation.

The procedure for article review.

2.1. All articles that are sent to Agrology are reviewed in order of precedence established by this Regulation. The materials are reviewed only if they had been prepared in accordance with the international standards.

2.2. The editor reports authors about receiving their articles and submitting them for review within 7 days.

2.3. Reviewer is selected by editor from a number of leading scientists on topic of a submitted manuscript.

2.4. The journal Agrology uses double-blind peer review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.

All the reviewers must be well-known specialists, have publications on a subject of material under review. Editorial Board reserves the right to conduct an additional review.

2.5. Periods of review in each case are determined by the editor taking into account the soonest possible publication of the material.

2.6. The following issues are analyzed in a review:

compliance of article content stated in its title theme to the journal profile;

relevance of work: compliance with priority areas and modern scientific achievements in the agricultural sector;

scientific innovation: results of the completed phase of the research, originality of a task;

feasibility of article publishing taking into account the coverage of an issue in the existing literature;

consistency and coherence of the material, design of tables and figures, correctness of formulas;

correctness and completeness of scientific evidences listed in a work;

accuracy and uniqueness of conclusions, their adequacy in relation to main provisions of the article, theoretical and practical importance of the material;

informativeness, consistency, structuring, abstracts, keywords, references;

advantages and disadvantages of the article and recommended corrections and additions.

2.7. Reviewer gives an opinion on the possibility of article publishing “recommended”, “recommended after correcting shortcomings specified by reviewer” or “not recommended”.

2.8. Based on the reviews, the Editorial Board, together with Editorial and Publishing Departments, decides whether to publish (reject) articles, informs the authors not later than 20 days after notification about receiving their copyrighted material.

2.9. An article requiring revision based on comments of a reviewer is sent back to the author. The period for corrections should not exceed a month. A corrected article is reviewed again. In case of rejection, the Editorial Board informs an author, providing a constructive reasoning.

2.10. An article that is not recommended for publication by a reviewer is not accepted for a review again. A negative review is sent to the author by e-mail, fax or regular mail.

2.11. Positive reviews, provided by authors, are not a sufficient reason for publication. The final decision on publication is made by the Editorial Board.

2.12. Originals of reviews are kept at the Editorial and Publishing Department for ten years. 

2.13 Each article is simultaneously sent to two reviewers who are not members of the editorial board. The first stage of review lasts up to 10-14 days. After corrections are made by the author, re-evaluation by other reviewers is possible. Typically, this procedure is used for manuscripts that require radical revision by the authors.