Peer-review process

Reviewing

Reviewing articles, that were  received  by the editorial board of the Agrarian Bulletin of the Black Sea Littoral

General provisions

All articles submitted to the editorial board of the journal are subject to the peer review process. The aim of the review is to facilitate the rigorous selection of copyright manuscripts for publication and make specific recommendations for their improvement. The review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, the determination of its compliance with the requirements of the journal and involves a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of article materials. Only articles that are scientifically valuable and contribute to solving urgent problems and tasks of agricultural science are accepted for publication. The degree of compliance with the rules for preparing articles and abstracts for publication in the scientific journal "Agrarian Bulletin of the Black Sea Littoral" is taken into account.

In order to improve the quality of peer review, the editorial board attracts independent experts who provide their written conclusions. In accordance with the journal’s policy, in most cases the review procedure is anonymous, both for the reviewers and for the authors. The main goal of the peer-review procedure is to eliminate cases of poor practice in research and to ensure coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, the editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the study was carried out. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and give recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation.

Reviewers are notified that the articles that were sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and relate to information that is not subject to disclosure. Reviewers are not allowed to copy the article submitted for review or use the knowledge about the content of the article in its publication. Reviewing takes place on the basis of confidentiality, when information about the article (terms of receipt, content, stages and features of the review, comments of reviewers and the final decision regarding publication) is not reported to anyone except the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or statements about the unreliability or falsification of the materials of the article. Comments of reviewers can be printed together with the article by agreement (desire) of the authors and reviewers,. In any case, the author of the peer-reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review, especially if he does not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.

Reviewer instructions

Ethical obligations of reviewers

  1. Since peer review of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process and, therefore, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, each scientist is obliged to carry out a certain part of the peer review work.
  2. If the reviewer is not selected that his qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he should immediately return the manuscript.
  3. The reviewer should objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the submitted experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and also take into account the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  4. The reviewer must take into account the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case when the manuscript is examined is closely related to the current or published work of the reviewer. If in doubt, the reviewer should immediately return the manuscript without review, indicating a conflict of interest.
  5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript, with the author or co-author of which he has personal or professional ties, and if such a relationship may affect the judgment of the manuscript.
  6. The reviewer should treat the manuscript aimed at the review as a confidential document. He should not show the manuscript to other people or discuss it with other colleagues, except in special cases when the reviewer needs someone special advice.
  7. Reviewers should adequately explain and reason their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion or argument has already been published should be accompanied by a link.
  8. The reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists that are directly related to the peer-reviewed work; it should be borne in mind that comments about inadequate citation of the reviewer's own research may look like biased. The reviewer should draw the attention of the editor to any significant similarities between the reviewed manuscript and any published article or any manuscript simultaneously submitted to another journal.
  9. The reviewer must provide timely feedback.
  10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in the manuscript in question, unless the author agrees. However, when the information indicates that some of the reviewer's own research may be inconclusive, the termination of such work by the reviewer is not contrary to ethical standards.