Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

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

Journal aim and scope

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

Agraarteadus accept 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). Particularly 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 a balanced and smart management of rural life. Submissions that aids the understanding biodiversity issues are welcome.

The journal is obligating itself to avoid publication bias by publishing negative studies if the study is well made.


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 contributed to the authorship: A) design/sampling/analysis, B) writing of the manuscript and C) editing and approving the final manuscript. Using initials of the authors should list the contributions for the manuscript for design/sample/analyses, writing of the manuscript, editing and approval of the final manuscript. Authors must declare all financial sources and any personal conflicts of interest that can bias the reported study. If the authors find no conflict of interest, they must state so at the end of a 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 be rejected. 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 grants author’s permission to print the article for use in a thesis. The 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 should evaluate manuscript on the basis of the scientific level, whether the study is adequately designed, is clearly written and contribute with new knowledge on 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 meeting 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 getting the invitation to review. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest that result from 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 can suggest alternative reviewer to the editor in chief, but the editor evaluates the suitability of reviewer and contact reviewer by herself/himself.
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 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 the two experts who would be reviewers.
  4. Potential reviewers accept or decline an invitation. When declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. Further invitations are issued, if necessary until the two acceptances is obtained.
  5. The reviewer read the paper several times to build 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 shortages 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 to get an extra opinion.
  7. The editor in chief sends reviews (anonymous) to the corresponding author.
  8. Author(s) revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
  9. Editor in chief assess the changes made and if necessary, send the manuscript back to the reviewers.
  10. Editorial Board meeting give final judgement to the manuscript. If accepted, the manuscript is sent to publishing. If the article is rejected, the editor in chief should include constructive comments to help the author improve the manuscript.


Implemented: December 01, 2015

Last edited: