Peer Review Policy and Procedures

General Provisions

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region upholds high standards in the peer-review process for scientific publications, which underpin the quality, reliability, and integrity of scholarly publications. This policy defines the principles and procedures of peer review, the responsibilities of reviewers, and the specifics of handling manuscripts authored by members of the editorial board. The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region adheres to the principles of transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing in accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Types of Peer Review

Our journals employ the following peer review model:

Double-Blind Peer Review

  • The identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed.
  • Reviewers receive an anonymised version of the manuscript without identifying information.
  • Authors receive anonymous feedback.
  • Purpose: to minimise the possibility of bias and ensure that the manuscript is evaluated solely on the basis of its scientific merit.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Assessment

  • Upon submission, an editorial board member conducts a preliminary assessment for relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with 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 specialised software and may be rejected at this stage.

2. Reviewer Selection

  • For each manuscript accepted for review, the Editor-in-Chief or an editorial board member assigns at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
  • The following factors are considered when selecting reviewers:
    • Expertise in the relevant area
    • Absence of conflict of interest
    • Previous reviewing experience
    • Even distribution of workload among reviewers
  • Potential reviewers are sent an invitation with the manuscript abstract and the review deadline.
  • Reviewers must confirm their acceptance or decline within 7 days.
  • In case of a decline, the editorial office contacts alternative reviewers.

3. Review Process

  • Upon accepting the invitation, reviewers are granted access to the full text of the manuscript (anonymised) and the review form.
  • The standard deadline for completing a review is 4 weeks. In exceptional cases, this deadline may be extended by agreement with the editorial office.
  • Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and not use information from the manuscript prior to its publication.
  • Reviewers must inform the editorial office of any potential conflict of interest that may emerge during the review.
  • Reviewers complete a standardised evaluation form that includes:
    • Overall assessment of the manuscript
    • Comments on originality, methodology, results, and their interpretation
    • Comments on structure, language, and formatting
    • Recommendations for improving the manuscript
    • Final recommendation (accept without changes, accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions, reject with the possibility of resubmission, reject without the possibility of resubmission)

4. Editorial Decision

  • Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member makes one of the following decisions:
    • Accept without changes
    • Accept with minor revisions
    • Accept with major revisions (with or without re-review)
    • Reject with the possibility of resubmission after substantial revision
    • Reject without the possibility of resubmission
  • In cases of significant discrepancies between reviewers' recommendations, the editorial office may assign an additional reviewer or discuss the decision at an editorial board meeting.
  • Authors receive notification of the decision along with anonymised reviews and editorial comments.

5. Resubmission and Re-Review

  • Authors who receive a decision of "Accept with revisions" or "Reject with the possibility of resubmission" are given a specified deadline for making changes and resubmitting the manuscript.
  • Upon resubmission, authors must provide:
    • A revised manuscript with highlighted changes
    • A cover letter with detailed responses to each reviewer's comment
  • Manuscripts with minor revisions are typically reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member without re-review.
  • Manuscripts with major revisions may be sent for re-review to the same or new reviewers.
  • A final decision regarding the manuscript is made after re-review.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Ethical Principles

Reviewers must adhere to the following ethical principles:

1. Confidentiality:

  • The manuscript under review is a confidential document.
  • It is prohibited to share the manuscript or discuss it with other individuals without the editorial office's permission.
  • It is prohibited to use non-public information from the manuscript for personal gain.

2. Objectivity:

  • The evaluation of the manuscript must be based solely on its scientific merit.
  • It is prohibited to be guided by personal attitudes toward the authors, their institution, or country.
  • Discrimination based on gender, race, religious or political views of the authors is prohibited.

3. Conflict of Interest:

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

4. Timeliness:

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

Professional Duties

Reviewers have the following professional duties:

1. Scientific Expertise:

  • Assessment of the scientific merit, originality, and relevance of the research
  • Analysis of methodology, results, and their interpretation
  • Identification of possible methodological errors or logical inconsistencies
  • Evaluation of whether the conclusions correspond to the obtained results

2. Quality Assurance:

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

3. Detection of Violations:

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

4. Constructiveness:

  • Providing specific, detailed, and constructive comments
  • Formulating concrete recommendations for improving the manuscript
  • Avoiding excessively critical or offensive comments
  • Acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript

Review Form and Structure

Reviewers must provide a structured review that includes:

1. General Assessment:

  • A brief overview of the manuscript
  • Assessment of relevance to the journal's scope
  • Assessment of overall scientific merit and originality

2. Specific Comments:

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

3. Recommendations:

  • Specific suggestions for improving the manuscript
  • Identification of sections that require expansion or reduction
  • Suggestions for additional analyses or literature sources

4. Final Recommendation:

  • A clear recommendation regarding the further fate of the manuscript
  • Justification for the recommendation

Handling Articles Authored by Editorial Board Members

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

1. General Principles

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

2. Manuscript Handling

  • An editorial board member who is an author or co-author of a manuscript is fully recused from the editorial process regarding their manuscript.
  • Such a manuscript is assigned for handling to a non-conflicted editorial board member or directly to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • The author, who is an editorial board member, has no access to information about reviewers or to the manuscript submission system regarding their manuscript.

3. Peer Review

  • Manuscripts by editorial board members must undergo double-blind peer review.
  • For such manuscripts, at least three independent reviewers are assigned (instead of the standard two).
  • Reviewers are preferably selected from international experts with no direct ties to the author.
  • Reviewers are required to be informed that the author is an editorial board member.

4. Decision-Making

  • Decisions regarding manuscripts by editorial board members are made at a special meeting of the editorial board or committee in which the author does not participate.
  • If the author is the Editor-in-Chief, the decision is made by a specially appointed committee of editorial board members.

5. Additional Safeguards

  • Limiting the number of publications by editorial board members in a single journal issue.
  • Annual audit of publications by editorial board members to ensure compliance with procedures.
  • Regular rotation of editorial board members responsible for reviewing colleagues' manuscripts.

Monitoring and Assessment of Review Quality

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

1. Review Evaluation:

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

2. Feedback:

  • The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board members provide feedback to reviewers regarding the quality of their reviews.
  • Authors may anonymously evaluate the usefulness of received reviews.

3. Reviewer Database:

  • Maintaining and regularly updating a database of reviewers with information on their expertise and the 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.
  • Organising webinars and training sessions for reviewers.
  • Publishing review guidelines on the journal's website.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

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

1. Annual Recognition:

  • Publication of an annual list of reviewers (with their consent).
  • Acknowledgement of the most active and qualified reviewers.

2. Certificates:

  • Provision of certificates of participation in peer review upon request.

Appealing Decisions and the 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
  • Evidence of reviewer bias
  • Significant violations of the review procedure
  • Contradictory reviewer recommendations without a clear explanation of the editorial decision

2. Appeal Procedure

  • Authors must submit an official letter with a detailed justification for the appeal.
  • Appeal letters are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a special committee.
  • A decision on the appeal is made within a specified timeframe.
  • Authors receive a substantiated response to their appeal.

3. Possible Outcomes

  • Confirmation of the previous decision
  • Referral of the manuscript for additional review
  • Revision of the decision, taking into account the author's justified arguments

Final Provisions

The Publishing House of the Institute of Agriculture of the Carpathian Region strives to maintain the highest standards of peer review to ensure the 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 evolving standards of scholarly peer review and the recommendations of relevant organisations, 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.