Governance and scholarly record
Editorial Policies
These policies define how Journal of Agronomy Research assesses manuscripts, protects editorial independence and corrects the scholarly record.
The rules apply to authors, reviewers, editors and Guest Editors. Financial arrangements and editorial decisions are handled independently.
Policy coordinates
Independent assessment → documented evidence → an accurate, traceable record.
Policy ownership
Publisher: Open Access Pub. Journal identity: Journal of Agronomy Research, ISSN 2639-3166. Policy review date: 3 August 2026. Concerns are directed to the editorial office for assignment to an uninvolved decision maker.
Find the applicable rule
Each policy states the rule, the disclosure expected and the route for editorial action. Important integrity rules remain visible and are not hidden inside collapsed controls.
Editorial independence
Authority, financial separation, editor submissions and recusal.
Peer review
Screening, reviewer selection, confidentiality, revisions and decisions.
Authorship and AI
Contribution, author changes, disclosure and confidential material.
Agronomy integrity
Sites, germplasm, agricultural inputs, permissions and sensitive data.
Scholarly record
Misconduct, corrections, retractions, appeals and complaints.
Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and are independent of fees, waivers, memberships, services and editorial or reviewer roles.
- The handling editor has authority over the editorial recommendation and must base it on the manuscript and relevant expert assessment.
- A submission from an editor, board member, reviewer, publisher employee or close collaborator is reassigned to an uninvolved editor.
- Editors disclose conflicts and recuse before accessing further confidential material.
- Advertising, sponsorship and commercial relationships are kept separate from decisions.
Conflicts and funding
Authors, reviewers and editors disclose financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work.
- Relationships with seed, pesticide, fertiliser, biological-input, equipment and data-platform companies must be declared.
- Funding sources and the funder’s role in design, analysis, writing and publication decisions must be stated.
- An undisclosed conflict may require correction, editorial investigation or another record action.
Peer review and decisions
The current ManuscriptZone workflow defaults to double-blind review and permits authors to select single-blind review. The public JAR pages presently state the opposite; the model must be reconciled across the platform and policies before canonical release.
Workflow alignment required
ManuscriptZone currently restricts final acceptance and rejection recording to publisher or manager roles. Before release, management must identify the senior editor with final scholarly authority and align the platform so administrative staff record or implement that decision rather than make it.
Initial assessment
The editorial office checks completeness, scope, declarations and evident integrity or reporting concerns. A manuscript can be declined before external review.
Expert assessment
Editors select reviewers for subject and methodological competence after conflict checks. Reviewer reports are confidential and advisory.
Revision and decision
The assigned editor evaluates the evidence and reports, may seek further review, and makes a reasoned scholarly recommendation within the authority configured for the role. Reviewer voting does not determine the outcome.
Appeal
An appeal must identify a substantive error or overlooked evidence. It should be assigned to a senior, uninvolved editor; disagreement alone does not require a new review.
Authorship and contributorship
- Each author must have made a substantial scholarly contribution, approve the submitted version and accept accountability for their contribution.
- The corresponding author confirms the author list, affiliations, disclosures and communication with all co-authors.
- Author additions, removals or reordering require a reason and written agreement from affected authors; disputes may be referred to institutions.
- Contributions should be described using a recognised taxonomy where appropriate. Writing or technical assistance that does not qualify for authorship is acknowledged.
AI-assisted work
An AI system cannot be named as an author. Authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality and integrity of the submitted work.
Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI or automated tools in a dedicated statement and describe the purpose of that use.
Editors and reviewers must not upload manuscripts, review reports or unpublished data to unauthorised external AI systems.
Automated output cannot make an editorial decision. Authors must verify citations, data, code, images and claims introduced with tool assistance.
Agronomy research integrity
Disclosures must match the study design. Requirements apply where relevant and should be sufficient for an editor or reader to understand provenance, permissions and environmental or biosafety constraints.
Sites and participants
DiscloseStudy-site permission, landowner or farm consent, human-participant approval for surveys or interviews, and protection of sensitive farm or geolocation data.
Editorial actionMissing or inconsistent permissions are clarified before review or referred for integrity assessment.
Biological materials
DiscloseCrop species, cultivar or accession, germplasm and seed provenance, microbial strains, biological inputs, access and benefit-sharing obligations.
Editorial actionEditors may request identifiers, permits or material documentation.
Regulated interventions
DiscloseGene-edited or genetically modified material, regulated pesticides, agricultural chemicals, biosafety controls and environmental risk.
Editorial actionWork lacking required approval or presenting unresolved safety concerns does not proceed.
Data and analysis
DiscloseData availability, code or model access, restrictions, experimental units, analysis choices, image processing and material availability.
Editorial actionEditors may request raw data, analysis records or clarification; legal or ethical access limits are recorded rather than ignored.
Misconduct and record actions
Concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, authorship, undisclosed conflicts, citation manipulation or peer-review manipulation are assessed without presuming an outcome.
The journal may seek an author response, underlying records or institutional input. Depending on the evidence and publication stage, an action may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal or exceptional removal. Notices remain linked to the affected record and state the reason to the extent permitted.
Complaints, appeals and concerns
Provide the article or manuscript identifier, the specific concern, supporting evidence and any relevant conflict. The matter is assigned to an uninvolved editor or publisher representative.
Confidentiality is respected, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed where due process requires disclosure. Outcomes are communicated to the extent privacy and legal duties permit.
Contact the editorial officeOpen access and preservation
Authors retain copyright and published articles use CC BY 4.0, unless the article record states an approved exception. Licence, correction and preservation information must match the version of record.
Preservation is not indexing
Open Access Pub participates in Portico, while the exact JAR title record is currently queued for preservation processing. See the Indexing & Discoverability page for the dated evidence and limitation.