The editorial board of the journal "Agrarian Innovations" supports a certain level of requirements for the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the editorial office. These norms are determined by the scientific direction of the journal and the quality standards of scientific works and their presentation, adopted by the scientific community.

The editors call for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee for the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE).

Ethical Responsibilities of Journal Editors

The editor should review all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each one properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or the position or place of work of the author (s).

Information is not allowed to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.

All materials submitted for publication are carefully selected and reviewed. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board.

The editor's decision to accept the article for publication is based on such characteristics of the article as the importance of the results, originality, quality of presentation of the material and compliance with the profile of the journal. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor believes that they do not match the journal's profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Authors' Ethical Commitments

Authors must ensure that they have written completely original articles, and that if authors have used the work or words of others, this has been properly documented in quotation marks or quotation marks.

Submitting an identical article to more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

The article should be structured, contain enough links and be designed according to the requirements.

Unscrupulous or knowingly inaccurate statements in the article are unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Correspondence with the editors must ensure that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the article, as well as agree to its publication.

The authors of the articles are fully responsible for the content of the articles and for the very fact of their publication. The editors of the journal are not liable to the authors for possible damage caused by the publication of the article. The editors have the right to remove the article if it turns out that in the process of publishing the article violated someone's rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics. The editorial board informs the author about the fact of withdrawal of the article. 

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers

To ensure the objectivity of the evaluation of manuscripts, the editors follow a double "blind" review.

Since the review of manuscripts is an important step in the process of preparation for publication, in the implementation of the scientific method as such, every scientist is obliged to perform a certain share of review work.

If the selected reviewer is not sure that his / her qualifications correspond to the level of research presented in the manuscript, he / she should return the manuscript immediately.

The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their judgments so that editors and authors can understand what their comments are based on. Any statement that an observation, conclusion or argument has been previously published should be accompanied by an appropriate reference.

The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any significant similarities between this manuscript and any published article or any manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.

Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in this manuscript without the consent of the author.

1. All manuscripts are first reviewed by editors to assess their relevance to the topic and the requirements of the journal.

2. The submitted manuscripts are sent to the reviewer (one of the members of the editorial board, a specialist in the relevant field). The manuscript undergoes double blind review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other.

The peer-review procedure is focused on the most objective assessment of the content of a scientific article, determining its compliance with the requirements of the journal and provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the article.

The reviewer draws a conclusion on the feasibility of the publication, indicating the main shortcomings of the article (if any), as well as a conclusion on the possibility of publication: "recommended", "recommended to correct these shortcomings" or "not recommended".

The most common reasons for refusing to publish an article are:

- poor or incorrect structure of the publication;

- lack of scientific novelty;

- insufficient number of relevant references to the literature;

- the article contains theories, concepts or conclusions that are not fully supported by data, arguments or information;

- the article has poor language quality.

3. The decision is sent to the author (s). Articles to be revised are sent to the author (s) together with the text of the review, which contains specific recommendations for revision of the article.

4. The revised version of the article is sent for re-review. In case of repeated negative review result, the article is rejected and is not subject to further consideration.

The editors do not enter into discussions with the authors of the rejected articles.