Peer-review process

The procedure for reviewing manuscripts

 The review of the manuscript is carried out as a process of receiving from a specialist in the relevant field (reviewer) an assessment of the scientific significance of the manuscript and its shortcomings and a conclusion regarding the possibility of publishing the article. The reviewer also provides recommendations to the authors and the editor to improve the quality of the manuscript.

The editors of the AgroChemistry and Soil Science take measures to ensure high professional and ethical standards based on the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice of Scientific Publishing

The editors conduct a comprehensive peer review of manuscripts to eliminate plagiarism and ensure quality publications.

The peer review procedure is mandatory for all manuscripts submitted for consideration to select the most relevant and acceptable for publication works in order to maintain a high scientific level of the ACSS.

Reviewers are members of the Editorial Board of the AgroChemistry and Soil Science or independent highly professional external experts who have their own publications on the topic of the manuscript to be reviewed.

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and also helps the author improve the article.

The AgroChemistry and Soil Science uses one-sided blind peer review: the article metadata is disclosed to the reviewer, and the reviewer's personal data is not disclosed to the authors.

Sequence of expert evaluation of the manuscript

  1. Initial control regarding the completeness and correctness of execution and compliance with Manuscript Requirements (see below). Executed by the executive secretary;
  2. Initial expert assessment of the manuscript and the definition of a reviewer from the editorial board in charge of the relevant scientific direction, or an external reviewer. Preference is given to reviewers who are known experts in the subject matter of this manuscript and who have published in this area of research over the past 10 years. Executed by the editor-in-chief or his deputy;
  3. Determination of the level of uniqueness of the author's text (check for plagiarism) is carried out by an editorial officer;
  4. The manuscript is reviewed by the selected reviewer. The duty of the reviewer is to objectively assess the content of a scientific article, determine its compliance with the scientific directions of the journal and conduct a thorough analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, while observing the relevant rules of publication ethics. The term for reviewing the manuscript by the reviewer does not exceed three weeks.

The editors recommend downloading and using for reviewing the typical Review form developed by the editors and posted on the website.

The main aspects to be peer reviewed by the reviewer: 

  •     relevance of the raised scientific problem;
  •  theoretical and applied significance of research;
  •  the adequacy of the selected methodological approaches;
  •  correctness of the given mathematical calculations, graphs, figures;
  •  observance by the authors of the rules of scientific ethics, correctness of references to literature;
  •  personal contribution of the author to the solution of the problem;
  •  the authenticity and validity of the conclusions of the author (s) in this work;
  •     correlation of the author's conclusions with modern scientific concepts.

Based on the results of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer can recommend (after eliminating the identified deficiencies) or not recommend the article for publication. In any case, the reviewer must justify his decision in the review.

The editors recommend the reviewer to give advice to authors (especially young scientists) on possible ways to improve the quality of the manuscript.

The reviewer sends the completed review to the editorial office by e-mail in the form of a scanned copy.

  1. The reviewer may refuse to review if, after getting acquainted with the work, he admits his own insufficient qualifications on the issues discussed in the manuscript, or if a conflict of interest is identified. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief (or his deputy) sends the manuscript to another reviewer. Additional reviewing can also be assigned in case of acute controversy of the provisions expressed in the manuscript.
  2. The editorial office sends the authors electronic copies of reviews (unnamed so as not to disclose information about the reviewer) or a reasoned refusal of the editorial board to publish the manuscript, as well as the editor's recommendations for improving the manuscript (the executor is the secretary of the editorial board).
  3. After the final editing of the improved (corrected by the author) manuscript, the final version is agreed with the author. It is the responsibility of the contact author to ensure that all coauthors are familiar with the final version of the manuscript.