Reviewed articles in the “Journal of Agrarian Sciences of Black Sea Region” (“Ukrainian Black Sea Region Agrarian Science”) General Provisions

The procedure of all articles’ reviewing is submitted to the Editorial Board. The main goal of the review is to promote rigorous selection of manuscripts for publications’ copyright and make specific recommendations for their improvement. The procedure of the rewiring is focused on the most objective assessment of the articles’ content to determine its compliance and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific materials. Only those articles that are valuable from a scientific point of view and are contributed to solving urgent problems and challenges of agrarian sciences can be printed. The compliance with the rules of articles and essays’ preparation for publication in the “Journal of Agrarian Sciences of Black Sea Region” is also checked by reviewers.

In order to improve the quality of review the editorial board involves independent experts who provide their findings in writing. In accordance with the policy of the Journal, in most cases the review process is anonymous, for the reviewer, and for the authors. The main purpose of the review procedure is eliminating substandard research practice and ensuring coordination and compliance with the balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and institutions in which the study was performed. Reviewers evaluate theoretical and methodological level of articles, its practical value and scientific importance. Besides, reviewers determine the principles of ethics in scientific publications and recommendations for eliminating violations.

Reviewers are notified that manuscripts are the intellectual property of authors and related data of which are not subject to disclosure. Reviewers should not copy out the articles or use their content before they are published. Reviewing occurs on the basis of confidentiality where information on the article (terms of receipt, content, features and stages of review, comments of reviewers and the final decision on publication) is not reported to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is only possible if there is evidence or statements about the unreliability of scientific materials. Optionally, it is possible to publish the reviewers’ comments.

In any case, the peer-reviewed articles are possible to be given to authors to learn the contents of the review, especially if they do not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

  1. As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.
  3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  4. A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest.
  5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
  6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
  7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  9. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.
  10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work.