Thank you for serving as an editor of AgroEnvironmental Sustainability. Editors decide what the journal publishes, and the care they take with each manuscript shapes both the journal's quality and the experience of its authors and reviewers. These guidelines explain what the journal asks of its Editor-in-Chief, section editors, and editorial board members.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal's content and has the final say on what is published. The Editor-in-Chief assigns manuscripts to section editors, handles appeals that do not involve their own decisions, and oversees the journal's policies. Section editors manage manuscripts in their subject area from assignment to decision: they invite reviewers, read the reports, and recommend or make the decision. Editorial board members advise on the journal's scope and direction, review manuscripts in their field, suggest reviewers, and may be asked to handle manuscripts as guest or section editors.
All editorial work is carried out in the journal's online system, so that every invitation, report, decision, and message is recorded with the manuscript. Please do not handle manuscripts through personal email.
Handling a New Submission
Each new submission is first checked by the editorial office for completeness. When a manuscript is assigned to you, check:
Scope: Does the work fall within agriculture and the environmental sciences, ideally linking the two? Manuscripts clearly outside the scope should be declined promptly so that the authors can submit elsewhere.
Similarity: Read the iThenticate (Crossref Similarity Check) report rather than relying on the percentage alone. Manuscripts with an overall similarity above 10%, or with a large overlap with any single source, are normally returned or declined. Where the overlap is limited, ask the authors to revise the affected text. See the Plagiarism Policy.
Basic quality: Is the research question clear, are the methods suitable, and is the manuscript written well enough to be reviewed? A manuscript with fundamental flaws can be declined without review, with a short explanation for the authors.
Required statements: Check that the manuscript includes the Statement of Sustainability, author contributions, conflicts of interest, ethical approval where needed, and a Data Availability Statement, as set out in the Author Guidelines.
Selecting Reviewers
The journal uses single-blind peer review, and every research article, review, short communication, and case study is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Editorials and letters are assessed by the editors.
Expertise: Invite reviewers with real expertise in the subject and methods of the manuscript. For interdisciplinary work, choose reviewers who together cover all of its main parts.
Independence: Authors may suggest reviewers, but you are not obliged to use them, and at least one reviewer must always be chosen independently of the authors' suggestions. Check the identity of any suggested reviewer, and prefer institutional email addresses over personal ones.
Conflicts: Do not invite reviewers who have recently collaborated with the authors, work at the same institution, or have any other conflict described in the Conflict of Interest Policy.
Follow-up: Send reminders when a review is overdue, and invite another reviewer if one declines or does not respond. If the review of a manuscript takes longer than usual, let the authors know about the delay.
Reviewers are asked to follow the journal's Reviewer Guidelines. If a report is very brief, rude, or asks the authors to cite unrelated work, edit out the inappropriate parts or seek an additional review before deciding.
Making a Decision
Base your decision only on the quality of the work, its relevance to the journal's scope, and the outcome of peer review. Read the manuscript yourself as well as the reports: the decision is not a vote count, and you may disagree with a reviewer if you explain why. Judge every manuscript without regard to the authors' nationality, institution, gender, religion, or seniority.
Decision options: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
Decision letter: Explain the reasons for the decision, point out the comments the authors must address, and say where reviewers disagree and which view you prefer. Ask the authors to reply to each comment point by point.
Revisions: Check that every point has been addressed. After a major revision, send the manuscript back to at least one of the original reviewers. Minor revisions can usually be checked by the editor alone.
Acceptance: Accept a manuscript only when the science is sound and all required statements are complete. Accepted articles receive a DOI registered with Crossref and are published in one of the journal's four issues each year.
Authors may appeal a decision under the Appeals Policy. Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision.
Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality
Conflicts: If you have a conflict of interest with a manuscript, for example a recent collaboration with an author or an institutional connection, ask the Editor-in-Chief to pass it to another editor.
Your own manuscripts: Editorial board members, including the Editor-in-Chief, may submit their own work to the journal. Such manuscripts go through the same peer review as any other, are handled by an editor with no connection to the authors, and the author-editor has no access to the review records or the decision process for that manuscript.
Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, and reports are confidential. Do not share them or use unpublished material in your own work.
AI tools: Do not enter submitted manuscripts or reviewer reports into generative AI tools, and do not use such tools to make editorial decisions. See the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.
Publication Ethics
If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, improper authorship, undeclared conflicts of interest, or an ethical breach in the research, do not accuse the authors directly. Report the concern to the Editor-in-Chief, who will handle it under the Research Integrity Issues Policy following the COPE flowcharts and guidance. Authors are always given a fair opportunity to respond before any decision is made.
Check that studies involving people, animals, or protected sites have the required ethical approval and permits, as described in the Research Ethics Policy. You may ask the authors for copies of approval documents.
After Publication
Errors found after publication are handled under the Corrections Policy, and serious problems under the Retraction Policy. Letters to the editor about published articles are assessed by the editors under the Post-publication Discussion Policy. Complaints about the handling of a manuscript or the conduct of an editor are dealt with under the Complaint Policy by someone who was not involved in the matter.
Title:AgroEnvironmental Sustainability Frequency: Quarterly ISSN: 2583-942X (Online) Co-Chief Editor(s): Prof. Ivan Širić and Dr. Pankaj Kumar Subject: Agriculture Language: English Publication Format: Online Publisher: Society for AgroEnvironmental Sustainability Address: 264/1 Badowala, Dehradun 248007, India Contact Email: info[at]sagens[dot]org Copyright: Author(s)
We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized content, and analyze our traffic. By clicking "Accept All", you consent to our use of cookies.
Privacy Policy
