Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Agraarteadus follows the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE 's guidelines.


Journal aim and scope

Agraarteadus | Journal of Agricultural Science is open access, internationally peer-reviewed journal and is indexed by several abstracting and full-text databases.

Agraarteadus accepts original research of both local and international dimensions from all fields of agriculture (including animal sciences, veterinary medicine, plant sciences, forestry, water management, nature conservation and ecology, environmental sciences, economics and engineering). In particular, multidisciplinary research is considered by the journal.

Specific topics of particular interest are investigations addressing issues of sustainability and investigations that consider practical implications for balanced and smart management of rural life. Submissions that aid the understanding of biodiversity issues are welcome.

The journal is determined to avoid publication bias by publishing negative studies if the study is well structured.

Agraarteadus is engaged to preserve and develop scientific vocabulary and terminology in a variety of disciplines in the local language. 


Authors

The author(s) should present a discussion of the novelty of the manuscript and the significance of the research work submitted. They must state that the submitted work is entirely original and all contributors are appropriately acknowledged who did not qualify for authorship (design/sample/analyses, write the manuscript, edit and approve final manuscript) and include funding sources, language editing, and technical assistance. It must be clearly stated how all the listed authors (identified by their initials) contributed to the authorship: A) design/sampling/analysis, B) writing of the manuscript and C) editing and approving the final manuscript. Authors must declare all financial sources and any personal conflicts of interest related to the reported study. If the authors have no conflicts of interest, this must be stated at the end of the manuscript.

Ethical considerations and experimental permits must be explained in the method section if applicable. Unnecessary suffering to animals and lack of required ethical permits where required will lead to rejection. Use of animals for scientific purposes must follow EU legislation .

All investigators should ensure that the planning conduct and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 . Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital, should not be published unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the person gives written informed consent for publication. 

Authors of accepted articles retain all rights to use, print, and distribute the published research as long as the author credits the original publication in this journal. On request, the journal will grant authors permission to print the article for use in a thesis. Authors submitting to the journal are expected to follow the general ethical guidelines regarding plagiarism. Once accepted the Journal retain the right to print and distribute the manuscript submitted by the author.


Editors

Editors should evaluate manuscript on the basis of the scientific level, whether the study is adequately designed, is clearly written and contributes to new knowledge in the field. Editors of the journal are responsible for deciding if the article submitted is of sufficient quality to be peer-reviewed and published.

Editors are not allowed to abuse their access to unpublished material for personal gain. Editors must state to the editor-in-chief if they have conflicts of interest or connections with an author(s) or institution(s) related to the article.

Editors are obliged to evaluate whether the ethical considerations and experimental permits are explained sufficiently and meet expected international standards. Unnecessary suffering to animals and lack of required ethical permits, where required, will not be accepted for publication. If there is doubt about local law or regulations, editors should clarify this with the authors and ask them to provide a letter from the individual research ethics committee or the research ethics authority in that country about the specific research project. Editors must take immediate and appropriate measures when any ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.


Peer review process

The general purpose of peer-review is to assist the editors in evaluating the quality of a manuscript considered for publication in Agraarteadus and to help the author(s) make improvements to the manuscript (Reviewer report (RTF)). 

Reviewers should express their views clearly and support them with arguments and references as necessary. If there are any competing interests’ reviewers should declare them to the editor when invited to review. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest regarding competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

Manuscripts submitted for review should be treated with confidentiality. The reviewer may suggest an alternative reviewer to the editor-in-chief, but the editors should evaluate the suitability of the reviewer and contact the reviewer by themselves. It is the responsibility of the editors and the journal to guarantee the protection of the identity of all peer-reviewers (single-blind review).

The review process is summarized here:

  1. The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal.
  2. The editor in chief checks that the paper corresponds to the journal's scope. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed. The editor in chief checks the manuscript's layout against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections.
  3. The editor in chief sends invitations to two experts who would be reviewers.
  4. Potential reviewers accept or decline the invitation. When declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. Further invitations are issued, if necessary, until two acceptances are obtained.
  5. The reviewer reads the paper to provide a detailed review according to the Reviewer report (RTF) provided. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject. Accepted manuscript problems are flagged as major or minor issues.
  6. The editor in chief evaluate all the reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor-in-chief may invite an additional reviewer for an extra opinion.
  7. The editor in chief sends reviews (anonymized) to the corresponding author.
  8. Author(s) revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
  9. The editor-in-chief assesses the changes made and, if necessary, sends the manuscript back to the reviewers.
  10. An Editorial Board meeting gives final judgement to the manuscript. If accepted, the manuscript is sent for publishing. If the article is rejected, the editor-in-chief should respond with constructive comments to help the author improve the manuscript.

 

Implemented: December 01, 2015

Last edited: