For reviewers

Peer Review Process

The order of reviewing

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW PROCEDURE

  1. The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the policy of the scientific and production journal “Agronauka i praktyka” and the rules of preparation of articles and author’s abstracts for publication. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, as reported by their authors.
  2. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent to the profile of the study to two reviewers. Appointed reviewers by the Editor-in-Chief of the scientific and production journal “Agricultural Science and Practice”. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief (under certain circumstances), the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of selecting reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board.
  3. For reviewing articles as reviewers may be scientists who carry out research in the specialty and have in the last three years at least one publication in publications included in the List of professional publications of Ukraine or foreign publications included in the Web of Science Core Collection and / or Scopus, or have monographs or sections of monographs published by international publishers belonging to categories “A”, “B” or “C” according to the classification of the Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment (SENSE).
  4. After receiving the article for consideration (within 7 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials, based on the compliance of their own qualifications in the direction of the author’s research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there are any competing interests, the reviewer must refuse to review and notify the editorial board. The latter must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
  5. The reviewer within 21 days makes a conclusion about the possibility of printing the article. Review deadlines may vary from case to case in order to create the conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials.
  6. Reviewing is conducted confidentially on the principles of double-blind reviewing (bilateral “blind” reviewing, when neither the author nor the reviewer know about each other). The interaction between the author and the reviewers takes place through the executive secretary of the collection. At the request of the reviewer and in agreement with the working group of the editorial board, the interaction between the author and the reviewer can take place in open mode (such a decision is made only if open interaction will improve the style and logic of presentation of research material).
  7. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standard form (Appendix 1), which he certifies with an electronic signature and sends to the e-mail of the collection. In preparing the form, generally accepted recommendations on the sequence and organization of the review process were used and summarized. The editors inform the author of the results of the review by e-mail.
  8. If the reviewer indicates the need to make certain adjustments to the article, the article is sent to the author with a proposal to take into account comments in the preparation of an updated version of the article or to refute them with arguments. The author adds a letter to the revised article, which contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that have been made in the article. The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision and prepare a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial board of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.
  9. In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editorial board of the collection. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit an article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind reviewing.
  10. The final decision on the possibility and expediency of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or on his behalf – a member of the editorial board), if necessary – the meeting of the editorial board as a whole. After the decision on the admission of the article to publication has been made, the Executive Secretary shall notify the author and indicate the expected date of publication.
  11. In case of receiving a positive decision on the possibility of publishing the article is published in the order of priority and relevance (in some cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn in the next issue).
  12. The final decision on the composition of printed articles is approved by the Academic Council of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region of NAAS, as noted in the second
  13. The article approved for publication is provided to the editor. After stylistic and formal corrections that do not affect the content, the article (scanned copy with corrections) is sent to the author for processing. After making all the edits, the article is submitted for printing.
  14. Responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with applicable standards in the materials of the article rests with the author. The author and reviewer are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions and recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the article.