Peer Review Policy and Procedures

General Provisions

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region adheres to high standards in the peer review process for scientific publications, which is the foundation for ensuring quality, reliability, and integrity of scientific publications. This policy defines the principles and procedures of peer review, responsibilities of reviewers, and specific considerations for manuscript review when authors are members of the editorial board. The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region follows principles of transparency, objectivity, and ethical approach to peer review in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Types of Peer Review

Our journals apply the following peer review model:

Double-Blind Peer Review

The identity of authors and reviewers is mutually concealed • Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript without identifying information • Authors receive anonymous reviews • Objective: To minimize potential bias and ensure evaluation based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Assessment

After manuscript submission, the managing editor conducts a preliminary assessment for journal scope compliance, adherence to formal requirements, overall quality, and originality • Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be rejected at this stage without being sent for peer review • Manuscripts showing signs of plagiarism are checked using specialized software and may be rejected at this stage

2. Reviewer Selection

For each manuscript accepted for review, the editor-in-chief or managing editor assigns at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field • Reviewer selection considers:

Expertise in the relevant area
Absence of conflicts of interest
Previous review experience
Balanced workload distribution among reviewers • Potential reviewers receive an invitation with manuscript abstract and review deadline • Reviewers must confirm their agreement or decline within 7 days • In case of decline, the editorial office contacts alternative reviewers

3. Review Process

After accepting the invitation, reviewers receive access to the full text of the manuscript (anonymized) and review form • Standard review period is 4 weeks. In exceptional cases, this period may be extended by agreement with the editorial office • Reviewers are obligated to maintain confidentiality and not use information from the manuscript before its publication • Reviewers must inform the editorial office of potential conflicts of interest if discovered during the review process • Reviewers complete a standard evaluation form including:

Overall manuscript assessment
Comments on originality, methodology, results, and their interpretation
Comments on structure, language, and formatting
Recommendations for manuscript improvement
Final recommendation (accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject with possibility of resubmission, reject without possibility of resubmission)

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, the editor-in-chief or section editor makes one of the following decisions:

Accept without changes
Accept with minor revisions
Accept with major revisions (with or without re-review)
Reject with possibility of resubmission after substantial revision
Reject without possibility of resubmission • In case of substantial disagreement between reviewer recommendations, the editorial office may assign an additional reviewer or discuss the decision at an editorial board meeting • Authors receive notification of the decision together with anonymized reviews and editorial comments

5. Resubmission and Re-review

Authors who receive "Accept with revisions" or "Reject with possibility of resubmission" decisions have a specified timeframe for making changes and resubmitting the manuscript • Upon resubmission, authors must provide:

Revised manuscript with highlighted changes
Cover letter with detailed responses to each reviewer comment • Manuscripts with minor revisions are typically checked by the editor without re-review • Manuscripts with major revisions may be sent for re-review to the same or new reviewers • After re-review, a final decision is made regarding the manuscript

Reviewer Responsibilities

Ethical Principles

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical principles:

1. Confidentiality:

The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document • Prohibited to share the manuscript or discuss it with others without editorial permission • Prohibited to use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal benefit

2. Objectivity:

Manuscript evaluation must be based solely on its scientific merit • Prohibited to be guided by personal attitudes toward authors, their institution, or country • Prohibited discrimination based on gender, race, religious, or political views of authors

3. Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers must decline review if there is a conflict of interest • Potential conflicts of interest discovered after accepting the invitation must be immediately reported to the editorial office • Conflicts of interest may include: joint projects with authors, competing research, financial connections, personal relationships, etc.

4. Timeliness:

Reviewers must adhere to established deadlines • If unable to complete the review on time, reviewers must notify the editorial office in advance • Inability to meet deadlines should not lead to delays in the publication process

Professional Duties

Reviewers have the following professional duties:

1. Scientific Expertise:

Assessment of scientific value, originality, and relevance of the research • Analysis of methodology, results, and their interpretation • Identification of possible methodological errors or logical inconsistencies • Assessment of correspondence between conclusions and obtained results

2. Quality Assurance:

Verification of currency and completeness of used literature • Assessment of clarity of presentation and manuscript structure • Verification of adequacy of tables, figures, and their captions • Identification of unnecessary sections or need for additional information

3. Violation Detection:

Identification of possible plagiarism or self-plagiarism • Detection of possible data fabrication or falsification • Identification of research ethics violations • Reporting any suspicions of violations to the editorial office

4. Constructiveness:

Providing specific, detailed, and constructive comments • Formulating specific recommendations for manuscript improvement • Avoiding overly critical or offensive comments • Noting both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript

Review Form and Structure

Reviewers must provide a structured review including:

1. General Assessment:

Brief manuscript overview • Assessment of journal scope compliance • Assessment of overall scientific value and originality

2. Specific Comments:

Comments on title, abstract, and keywords • Assessment of introduction and literature review • Analysis of research methodology • Comments on results and their interpretation • Assessment of conclusions and their correspondence to research objectives • Comments on tables, figures, and appendices • Remarks on language, style, and formatting

3. Recommendations:

Specific suggestions for manuscript improvement • Identification of sections requiring expansion or reduction • Suggestions for additional analyses or literature sources

4. Final Recommendation:

Clear recommendation regarding the manuscript's future • Justification of the recommendation

Handling Articles by Editorial Board Members

To ensure objectivity and prevent conflicts of interest when reviewing manuscripts authored by editorial board members, the following special procedures apply:

1. General Principles

Editorial board members who submit manuscripts to the journal are subject to the same review procedures and editorial processing as external authors • Editorial board members have no privileges regarding acceptance of their manuscripts • The review and decision-making process for such manuscripts must be maximally transparent

2. Manuscript Review

An editorial board member who is an author or co-author of a manuscript is completely excluded from the editorial process regarding their manuscript • Such manuscripts are assigned for processing to a non-conflicted editorial board member or directly to the editor-in-chief • Authors who are editorial board members do not have access to information about reviewers or to the manuscript submission system regarding their manuscript

3. Peer Review

Manuscripts by editorial board members undergo mandatory double-blind peer review • At least three independent reviewers (instead of the standard two) are assigned for such manuscripts • Reviewers are preferably selected from international experts who have no direct connections with the author • Reviewers are necessarily informed that the author is an editorial board member

4. Decision Making

Decisions regarding manuscripts by editorial board members are made at special editorial board meetings or committee meetings in which the author does not participate • If the author is the editor-in-chief, the decision is made by the deputy editor-in-chief or a specially appointed committee • Information about editorial board member authorship and special review procedure is indicated in the published article in the "Conflict of Interest" section

5. Additional Safeguards

Limiting the number of publications by editorial board members in one journal issue • Annual audit of editorial board member publications to ensure procedure compliance • Regular rotation of editorial board members responsible for reviewing colleagues' manuscripts

Monitoring and Evaluation of Review Quality

To maintain high review quality, the journal implements the following measures:

1. Review Assessment:

The editorial office regularly evaluates the quality of received reviews • Criteria such as thoroughness, constructiveness, timeliness, and ethical compliance are considered

2. Feedback:

Editors provide feedback to reviewers on the quality of their reviews • Authors can anonymously evaluate the usefulness of received reviews

3. Reviewer Database:

Maintenance and regular updating of reviewer database with information about their expertise and quality of previous reviews • Recruiting new qualified reviewers to expand the expert base

4. Training and Support:

Providing reviewers with detailed instructions and recommendations on the review process • Organizing webinars and training sessions for reviewers • Publishing review guidelines on the journal website

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

Each journal recognizes the important contribution of reviewers to ensuring publication quality and implements the following forms of recognition:

1. Annual Recognition:

Publication of annual reviewer list (with their consent) • Recognition of most active and qualified reviewers

2. Certificates:

Providing certificates of review participation upon request

3. Open Review (optional):

Possibility of publishing reviewer names together with the article with their consent • Possibility of publishing reviews together with the article (with consent of reviewers and authors)

Appeals of Decisions and Review Process

Authors have the right to appeal decisions or the review process in the following cases:

1. Grounds for Appeal:

Obvious factual errors in reviews • Demonstrable reviewer bias • Substantial violation of review procedure • Contradictory reviewer recommendations without clear explanation of editorial decision

2. Appeal Procedure:

Authors must submit an official letter with detailed justification of the appeal • Appeal letters are reviewed by the editor-in-chief or special committee • Appeal decisions are made within a specified timeframe • Authors receive a reasoned response to their appeal

3. Possible Outcomes:

Confirmation of previous decision • Manuscript referral for additional review • Decision revision considering author's justified arguments

Final Provisions

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region strives to maintain the highest review standards to ensure scientific quality of publications, fair and ethical treatment of authors, and transparency of editorial processes.

This policy is regularly reviewed and updated in accordance with the evolution of scientific review standards and recommendations of relevant organizations such as COPE.

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region reserves the right to make changes to this policy. All changes will be announced on the official website.