Peer-review Process

The journal «Agricultural and Resource Economics» practices a «double-blind» review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and referees do not know the name of the authors whose papers they review.

We strongly recommend that all reviewers read and adhere COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

The procedure for reviewing articles in the journal includes the following stages:

1. Initial review. The Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Editor evaluates each manuscript to determine whether it meets the journal’s criteria (relevance to the subject area, topicality, and formatting of the article) and checks it for plagiarism using special software. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest (is the author or co-author of the article, has family or professional ties with the authors), the initial review is conducted by Deputy Editor or a member of the Editorial Board who does not have a conflict of interest.

Manuscripts that do not pass the initial review are rejected; the author is informed of the decision. If the manuscript meets the requirements of the journal, it is submitted for peer review.

2. Peer review. Manuscripts that have successfully passed the initial review are sent by e-mail for peer review to scientists who have a specialisation close to the subject matter of the article. All personal data of the authors are removed from the texts of the articles beforehand.

All articles are reviewed by at least (usually) two active scientists or more (if necessary); as a rule, reviewers are external; members of the Editorial Board may be involved, but at least one of the reviewers must not be a member of the Editorial Board. The selection of reviewers is based on their experience in a particular field.

Reviewers complete their reviews on a special form. The review forms are returned to the editorial board, as a rule, within 20 days of receipt of the material. In case of delays in returning the reviews, the reviewer should inform the Editorial Board by e-mail. If the reviewer has any questions, comments or requests, they will contact the Editorial Board.

According to results of reviewing, the manuscript may be recommended:

- For publication in the original version, i.e. without any changes;

- For publication after making minor changes according to reviewer comments;

- For re-review after significant revisions by the author(s);

- For refusal for publication without further consideration.

After the review, the Executive Editor reviews the reports of the reviewers and in some cases (for example, if the reviews differ significantly) may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an additional opinion before making a decision.

The list of external reviewers is published in the fourth issue of the journal at the end of each year.

3. Decision. The Editor-in-Chief, based on the review reports, decides on the acceptance / revision / rejection of the manuscript and informs the authors about it. Depending on the decision, the authors may be provided with comments from the reviewers. In case of refusal for publication without further consideration, no comments are provided to the authors. If the reviewers suggest certain changes (corrections, additions), the authors should take them into account.

If a decision is made to “send for re-review,” the manuscript must be revised and sent for a second round of peer review. Revisions do not guarantee acceptance of the article; if the reviewers consider the changes unsatisfactory, the article will be rejected.

If only minor changes are suggested, such a re-review may be carried out by the Editor-in-Chief.

If the author submits objections to the results of the review, providing his/her reasonable arguments and explanations, the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Executive Editor will check the author’s objections and inform him/her of the result.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision to publish the manuscript in the journal, taking into account all recommendations, arguments and compliance with the journal’s requirements. The Editor-in-Chief does not participate in decision-making on articles in which he or she has a conflict of interest. All such articles are independently reviewed without the participation of the Editor-in-Chief; the final decision in this case is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.