Peer Review Process

Acta Agricola Romanica (AAR) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality and integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication. The journal is committed to maintaining high editorial standards and promoting the dissemination of reliable and scientifically relevant research across its three major scientific fields.

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's online editorial platform. The entire editorial workflow, including manuscript submission, preliminary assessment, peer review, author revisions, editorial decisions and final acceptance, is managed through this system.

Authors are responsible for monitoring the status of their submissions and responding to editorial requests through their online accounts.

Peer Review Type

AAR follows a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the evaluation process.

This approach is intended to support impartiality, objectivity and independence in scientific assessment.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Office and the responsible editors.

The initial assessment focuses on:

  • Relevance to the journal's scientific scope and the the corresponding scientific area.
  • Compliance with the journal's Guidelines for Authors and manuscript formatting requirements.
  • Originality and scientific relevance of the submitted research.
  • Adherence to publication ethics and research integrity standards.
  • Compliance with the journal's plagiarism and similarity screening policy.

All manuscripts are screened using Turnitin before external peer review, in accordance with the journal's established similarity requirements.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the scientific, technical or ethical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before external evaluation.

Peer Review Procedure

Manuscripts that successfully complete the preliminary assessment are assigned to two or three independent national or international reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant scientific discipline.

Reviewers are selected according to their academic qualifications, research experience and familiarity with the manuscript's subject.

The evaluation is conducted confidentially, and reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive and scientifically substantiated assessments.

The principal objective of peer review is to ensure that manuscripts accepted for publication represent original scientific contributions supported by appropriate methodologies, reliable data and well-founded conclusions.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Scientific originality and contribution: Novelty of the research and its contribution to advancing knowledge in the relevant scientific field.
  • Relevance to the journal: Consistency of the manuscript with the scientific scope and thematic orientation of AAR.
  • Research objectives: Clarity of the research questions, hypotheses and objectives.
  • Experimental design and methodology: Appropriateness of research methods, experimental controls, replication, randomization and other relevant methodological elements.
  • Statistical analysis: Suitability and accuracy of statistical procedures used to analyze and interpret the research data.
  • Results and interpretation: Clarity, reliability and scientific relevance of the results, including the consistency between findings, discussion and conclusions.
  • Scientific presentation: Logical organization, clarity of expression, quality of tables and figures, and compliance with the journal's editorial requirements.
  • Bibliographical references: Relevance, accuracy and currency of the cited scientific literature.

Reviewers may recommend improvements to the manuscript and request additional explanations, analyses or methodological clarifications where necessary.

Review Timeline

The peer-review process generally takes approximately 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the extent of revisions required.

The journal seeks to ensure a timely and efficient evaluation process while maintaining the scientific rigor and independence of peer review.

Editorial Decisions

Following the evaluation of reviewers' reports, the responsible editor assesses the manuscript and submits a recommendation for the final editorial decision.

Possible decisions include:

  1. Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further scientific revisions.
  2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before acceptance.
  3. Major Revisions: Substantial modifications, additional analyses or further explanations are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific or editorial requirements for publication.

The final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' assessments, the responsible editor's recommendations and the journal's editorial policies.

Manuscript Revision and Resubmission

When revisions are requested, authors receive the reviewers' comments and editorial recommendations through the online platform.

Revised manuscripts must be submitted through the same system, together with a detailed response addressing the reviewers' observations and explaining the modifications made.

Depending on the nature and extent of the revisions, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional experts.

Authors are expected to respond to all scientific comments in a clear, professional and constructive manner.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All participants in the peer-review process must respect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and associated editorial correspondence.

Reviewers and editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and must not use unpublished research findings for personal or professional advantage.

The evaluation process follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Acta Agricola Romanica is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based exclusively on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor and compliance with ethical standards.