1. Purpose of Peer Review
Current Research in Agricultural Sciences (CRAS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review serves as a critical mechanism for evaluating the scientific quality, originality, validity, and significance of research before publication.
The primary objective of peer review is to ensure that published articles contribute meaningfully to the advancement of agricultural sciences and related disciplines while upholding academic integrity and ethical research practices.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:
-
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
-
Originality and scientific significance;
-
Compliance with submission guidelines and ethical requirements;
-
Methodological rigor and research quality;
-
Clarity of presentation and language quality.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review
Current Research in Agricultural Sciences follows a double-blind peer review process, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Authors must ensure that manuscripts are prepared in a manner that does not reveal their identities or institutional affiliations.
This review model promotes impartiality and minimizes potential bias associated with authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, or academic reputation.
Following editorial screening, manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
-
Originality and novelty of the research;
-
Relevance to agricultural sciences and related fields;
-
Scientific soundness and methodological rigor;
-
Appropriateness of data collection and analysis;
-
Accuracy and reliability of results;
-
Adequacy of references and literature review;
-
Clarity of presentation and organization;
-
Validity of conclusions and their support by the presented evidence;
-
Contribution to existing knowledge and practical implications.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help authors improve the quality and impact of their work.
5. Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewers' recommendations and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:
-
Accept without revision;
-
Accept with minor revisions;
-
Major revisions required;
-
Reject with an invitation to resubmit;
-
Reject.
The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor.
6. Plagiarism Detection and Similarity Checking
The journal is committed to publishing original research and preventing academic misconduct. All submitted manuscripts are screened using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service before acceptance.
The journal does not accept manuscripts containing:
-
Plagiarism;
-
Self-plagiarism;
-
Duplicate or redundant publication;
-
Fabrication or falsification of data;
-
Manipulation of images or research results;
-
Citation manipulation.
Cases of suspected misconduct are handled in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
7. Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the research, peer review, or editorial decision-making process.
All authors are required to provide a conflict of interest statement at the time of manuscript submission.
8. Research Ethics and Integrity
Research submitted to CRAS must be conducted in accordance with recognized ethical standards and applicable national and international regulations.
Authors are expected to:
-
Report research findings accurately and transparently;
-
Retain and provide original data upon request;
-
Properly acknowledge the work of others;
-
Avoid fabrication, falsification, and selective reporting of data;
-
Comply with ethical standards applicable to agricultural, environmental, laboratory, field, and interdisciplinary research.
9. Human Participants, Animal Welfare, and Ethical Approval
Where research involves human participants, animals, or sensitive biological materials, authors must provide evidence of approval from an appropriate ethics committee, institutional review board, or regulatory authority.
For studies involving human participants, authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained and that participant confidentiality has been protected.
Research involving animals must comply with internationally recognized animal welfare standards and relevant institutional and national regulations. Authors should clearly state the ethical approval reference number and approving authority within the manuscript.
10. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to Current Research in Agricultural Sciences are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
Confidentiality is maintained throughout the peer review process and after editorial decisions have been made.
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing a detailed explanation and supporting evidence.
Complaints regarding editorial procedures, peer review conduct, publication ethics, or conflicts of interest will be investigated and resolved in accordance with COPE principles and best practices.
12. Commitment to Publication Ethics
Current Research in Agricultural Sciences adheres to the Core Practices and ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to ensuring integrity, transparency, accountability, and excellence in scholarly publishing.
Additional information regarding ethical standards and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors can be found in the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). World Scientific.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103