The Agricultural Science and Practice journal applies double-blind peer review of manuscripts: the identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually unknown throughout the entire review process, ensuring maximum objectivity in the evaluation of scientific works.

The editorial board recommends that all reviewers familiarize themselves with and adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Review Stages

1. Initial Stage

Either the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor conducts an initial assessment of each manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal’s scope, timeliness, and correct formatting. At this stage, a plagiarism check is also conducted using specialized software.

In cases of potential conflict of interest (if the Editor-in-Chief is an author, co-author of the article, or has family or professional ties with the authors), the initial review is conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or a member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.

Manuscripts not meeting the established criteria are rejected with appropriate notification to the authors. Articles that successfully pass the initial stage are sent for double-blind peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts are sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The selection of reviewers is based on their qualifications and experience in a specific scientific area.

Before sending to reviewers, all personal data of authors are removed from the article texts to ensure anonymity.

Reviewers prepare their reviews using a special form and submit their conclusions to the editorial board within 20 days of receiving the manuscript. In the event of circumstances causing a delay, reviewers should notify the editorial office in advance.

After receiving the reviews, the responsible editor analyzes the reviewers’ reports. In cases of significant discrepancies in assessments, an additional reviewer may be involved to obtain a more complete picture before making a decision.

3. Decision Making

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept the manuscript without changes;
• Accept the manuscript subject to minor corrections;
• Send for revision with subsequent re-review;
• Reject the manuscript.

Authors are notified of the decision and the reviewers’ comments (except in cases of rejection without further consideration).

If the manuscript requires revision, authors must address the reviewers’ comments and submit a corrected version. Revision does not guarantee automatic acceptance of the article – if reviewers consider the changes made to be insufficient, the article may be rejected.

In the case of minor comments, the re-review may be conducted directly by the Editor-in-Chief.

If an author has reasonable objections to the review results, they can provide their arguments and explanations, which will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor.

Final Decision

The final decision on the publication of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account all recommendations, arguments, and compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in making decisions regarding articles for which there is a conflict of interest. In such cases, manuscripts undergo independent review, and the final decision is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

During the review of manuscripts, the evaluation involves:

• Relevance to the journal’s scope;
• Scientific novelty and originality of results;
• Methodological validity of the research;
• Analysis and interpretation of the obtained results;
• Correspondence to the current state of research in the field;
• Quality of presentation and structure of the manuscript;
• Compliance with ethical standards of research;
• Completeness and relevance of bibliographic references.

Review Timeframes

The journal’s editorial board strives to ensure prompt review of manuscripts:

• Initial assessment of the manuscript: up to 7 days;.
• Double-blind peer review: up to 20 days;
• Notification to authors about the decision: up to 3 days after completion of the review;
• Total time from submission to first decision: up to 25 days.

Ensuring Review Quality

To maintain high review standards, the journal:

• Regularly updates the reviewer database, involving recognized experts in relevant fields;
• Monitors the quality and timeliness of reviews;
• Provides reviewers with detailed instructions and forms for manuscript evaluation;
• Maintains the confidentiality of the review process.

Ethical Aspects of Reviewing

Reviewers are obliged to:

• Maintain confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript;
• Decline to review in case of conflict of interest;
• Provide an objective assessment without personal bias;
• Avoid unjustified criticism or praise;
• Adhere to established review deadlines.