Editorial operations handbook
For Editors
Editors working with the Journal of Agronomy Research assess agronomic relevance, methodological adequacy and research integrity while making independent, reasoned recommendations.
Reviewer reports inform the decision; they do not replace editorial judgement. Editors recuse whenever independence could reasonably be questioned.
Editorial decision plot
All three dimensions must be resolved before acceptance.
Authority and boundaries
Editors control scholarly assessment within their assigned role. They do not negotiate APCs, promise outcomes, investigate serious misconduct alone or use confidential manuscripts outside the authorised workflow.
Roles in the editorial record
Titles apply only where the appointment exists. A person may not exercise multiple roles on the same manuscript where that compromises independence.
Editor-in-Chief
Primary responsibilityScholarly direction, policy oversight, senior recommendations, appointments and escalation, subject to confirmation of the current office-holder and authority.
BoundaryReassigns own submissions and any matter involving a conflict.
Assigned Editor
Primary responsibilityInitial assessment, reviewer selection, revision evaluation and reasoned scholarly recommendation within the configured workflow.
BoundaryEscalates integrity, legal or serious policy concerns rather than investigating alone.
Editorial Board Member
Primary responsibilityProvides subject expertise, reviews or handles work when formally assigned, and keeps profile and conflicts current.
BoundaryBoard status alone does not confer decision authority on a manuscript.
Guest Editor
Primary responsibilitySupports a verified Special Issue within its approved scope and governance record.
BoundaryDoes not decide own submissions or override the designated JAR editor.
Final decision authority must be resolved
The current platform permits publisher or manager roles—not the assigned editor role—to record final acceptance or rejection. Before release, management must designate the senior editor with final scholarly authority and align the system and policy.
Initial agronomy assessment
Before inviting reviewers, determine whether external review can answer a meaningful editorial question.
Scope and contribution
Does the manuscript address a defined crop, soil or production-system question with an agronomically meaningful outcome?
Design and experimental unit
Are treatments, controls, replication, randomisation, blocking, sampling and the unit of inference identifiable and defensible?
Context and materials
Are crop/cultivar, site, season, soil, management, inputs and material provenance sufficient for assessment?
Analysis and interpretation
Does the statistical model match the design, and do conclusions remain within the environments and evidence studied?
Declarations and permissions
Are funding, conflicts, data, author contributions, ethics, field permissions and regulated-material requirements addressed?
Select reviewers by competence
- Match subject, method and statistical expertise to the manuscript.
- Check recent co-authorship, institutional, supervisory, personal and commercial conflicts.
- Avoid reviewer rings and uncritical dependence on author suggestions.
- Seek methodological and contextual breadth where the question requires it.
- Do not use country, institution prestige, seniority or expected citation value as a proxy for competence.
- Replace unresponsive or inadequate reviewers without compromising confidentiality.
Recusal is mandatory when
- The editor is an author or close collaborator.
- The manuscript comes from the editor’s institution or presents a direct professional conflict.
- A financial or advisory relationship involves a product, company or intervention studied.
- Personal competition, dispute or advocacy could affect impartiality.
- The editor has accessed or used the work outside the editorial role.
Record the conflict and request reassignment without influencing the replacement editor.
Decision pathway
A decision letter identifies the decisive evidence, explains required action and avoids coercive citation or promises outside policy.
Evaluate the reports
Check whether reviewers addressed the relevant scientific questions and whether comments are supported, respectful and within expertise.
Resolve disagreement
Identify the technical source of disagreement. Seek clarification or another expert only when it can resolve a material question.
Choose the proportionate outcome
Minor revision addresses bounded clarifications; major revision requires substantive but feasible work; rejection applies when the central evidence or fit cannot be repaired.
Confirm acceptance conditions
Accept only when the evidence supports the conclusions, required declarations are complete and material integrity concerns are resolved.
Write the decision
Give an evidence-based rationale, separate required from optional suggestions, and prohibit personal remarks or citation demands for benefit.
Integrity escalation
Editors preserve evidence and confidentiality, document the concern and refer it through the policy route. They do not contact an author’s institution or conduct an external investigation independently.
Text, data or image concern
ExamplesPlagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, manipulation, selective reporting.
ActionPause the decision, record the evidence and escalate for structured assessment.
Authorship or conflict concern
ExamplesDisputed authorship, hidden commercial interest, editor or reviewer conflict.
ActionDo not mediate beyond journal authority; seek documented statements and institutional input where appropriate.
Review-process concern
ExamplesFabricated reviewer identity, review ring, confidential sharing, citation coercion.
ActionSecure the record, replace compromised participants and escalate.
Agricultural risk concern
ExamplesUnapproved regulated inputs, biosafety, missing permits, unsupported product claims, environmental harm.
ActionRequest evidence and appropriate expertise; do not proceed while a material approval or safety issue is unresolved.
Confidentiality and AI
Editors and reviewers must not upload manuscripts, review reports or unpublished data to unauthorised external AI systems.
- Do not share files, reviewer identities or unpublished findings outside the authorised system.
- Do not delegate handling or draft a decision with an unapproved person or service.
- Do not use unpublished information for personal, institutional or commercial benefit.
- Disclose any accidental exposure immediately.
Communication standard
- State the scientific reason for the decision.
- Use professional, specific and actionable language.
- Do not promise acceptance, timing, visibility or citations.
- Do not request irrelevant citations or citations for personal benefit.
- Keep financial support, recruitment and editorial decisions separate.