PROCEDURE FOR REVIEWING MANUSCRIPTS

Manuscripts are reviewed to ensure the high scientific and theoretical level of the collection of scientific papers “Agrobiology.”

1. Scientific articles prepared in accordance with the requirements for preparing articles for publication are accepted for review. Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered, are not accepted for further consideration, and are returned to the authors.

2. The initial review of a scientific article is conducted by the editor-in-chief or his/her deputy. In cases where the editor-in-chief has a personal interest in the publication (is the author or co-author of the article), the review is conducted by his/her deputy or another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.

3. Submitted materials must correspond to the subject matter of the collection of scientific papers. If the requirements are met, the article is forwarded to the technical editor, who assigns a registration code to the article and removes information about the author or authors from it.

4. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board of the collection of scientific papers “Agribiology” are subject to double-blind (anonymous) peer review:

• reviewers do not know the personal data of the authors;

• authors do not know the personal data of the reviewer.

5. To review articles, both members of the editorial board and third-party highly qualified specialists with in-depth professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific field may act as reviewers. On behalf of the editorial board, a letter is sent to such a scientist with a request for review. The letter is accompanied by an anonymous article and a standard review form.

6. The reviewer usually makes a conclusion on the possibility of publishing the article within 2-4 weeks. The terms of the review may vary in each individual case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the submitted materials.

7. After the final analysis of the article, the reviewer fills out a standardized review form that contains the final recommendations. The editorial board informs an author of the review results by e-mail.

8. If the reviewer points out the necessity to make certain corrections to the article, the article is sent to an author with a proposal to take into account the comments or to refute them with arguments. To the revised article the author attaches a letter that contains answers to all comments and explains all the changes that were made in the article.

The corrected version is re-submitted to the reviewer to make a decision on the possibility of publication.

The acceptance date of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editorial office of a positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the expediency and possibility of publishing the article.

9. In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned response to the editorial board. 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 if the author is unwilling to take into account the wishes and comments of the reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the Editorial Board may submit the article to another reviewer.

10. The editor-in-chief analyzes the reviews of the reviewers and makes the final decision on publication based on them, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the journal's requirements.

11. The final decision on the list of printed articles is recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Academic Council, which is noted on the second page of the publication.