Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal “Agricultural Machines” applies peer review as a key mechanism for ensuring the scientific quality of publications and adherence to the principles of academic integrity. The peer review process is aimed at providing an objective evaluation of the scientific novelty, methodological soundness, and practical significance of research in the field of agricultural sciences (Cluster H).

1. Review Model

The Journal uses a double-blind peer review model, in which neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other's identities. This approach ensures impartiality and independence in the evaluation process.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening to:

  • assess its relevance to the Journal’s scope (Cluster H);

  • verify compliance with submission and formatting requirements;

  • perform a preliminary check for plagiarism and academic integrity.

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

3. Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s scientific quality, relevance, and suitability for publication.

In cases of conflict of interest, the manuscript is reassigned to another member of the editorial board.

4. External Peer Review

The manuscript is sent to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

  • appropriate academic qualifications and research experience;

  • absence of conflicts of interest with the authors;

  • independence from the authors’ affiliated institutions (where possible).

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • relevance and scientific novelty;

  • methodological rigor and validity;

  • reliability of results;

  • practical significance;

  • clarity of presentation and logical consistency;

  • compliance with the Journal’s structure and formatting requirements.

6. Review Outcomes

Based on the reviewers’ reports, the following decisions may be made:

  • accept for publication;

  • accept with minor revisions;

  • request major revisions;

  • reject the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be subject to additional rounds of review.

7. Communication with Authors

Authors receive reviewers’ comments and are expected to address them in the revised manuscript.

Where necessary, the revised version may be resubmitted for further evaluation.

8. Final Decision

The final decision on publication is made by the editorial board based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s compliance with the Journal’s requirements.

9. Review Timeline

The average peer review period is 2–4 weeks from the date the manuscript is sent to reviewers.
The average time to the first decision is up to 4–8 weeks.

10. Confidentiality

All review reports are treated as confidential documents and are stored by the editorial office for internal use only.