Journal of Precision Agriculture · Editors Guidelines
Guidelines for Editors
What the journal asks of the editors who handle its manuscripts, and the judgments that are theirs to make.
These responsibilities sit on top of the journal’s editorial policies, which govern in any case of doubt.
Judging fit
The first question is whether the manuscript contributes to precision agriculture, not whether it is the kind of study you would have designed. A modeling paper, a synthesis, a validation study, an adoption survey and a field experiment can all belong here.
Fit and validity are separate judgments. A manuscript can be squarely in scope and still be unsound, and it can be unfamiliar in method and still be exactly what the journal exists to publish. Decide fit against the Aims and Scope, then let review address validity.
Choosing reviewers
Precision agriculture is interdisciplinary, and most submissions need more than one kind of expertise: the agronomy and the sensing, or the analysis and the machinery. Choose reviewers who between them cover the claims actually made.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Approach reviewers who can give the manuscript proper attention, and tell them what you need from them.
Conflicts and confidentiality
Decline to handle a manuscript where you hold a financial, personal, academic or institutional interest, and return it for reassignment. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions, which are handled independently.
A submitted manuscript is confidential. Do not share it, cite it, or use anything in it before publication. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Assessing the evidence
Ask whether the evidence presented supports the claims made, at the strength they are made. A method paper owes validation and a statement of the conditions in which it holds; a field study owes its design, sites and seasons; a synthesis owes its search and selection; an adoption study owes its sampling and its limits. None of these owes the account that belongs to another.
Where research involves human participants, animals, regulated materials or a registered trial, confirm the approvals and registrations are reported. Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
Deciding and explaining
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Weigh reviewer reports rather than counting them: a single well-argued report can outweigh two thin ones. Say in your decision letter what the decision is, what it rests on, and what a revision would need to address, so authors can act on it.
Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial or reviewing roles.
Keeping the record straight
Where an error or an integrity concern emerges after publication, the record is corrected in public: a correction where part of an article is affected, a retraction where findings are no longer reliable. Both remain linked to the original article.
Appeals against a decision you took are considered by another editor.
Related pages
The guidance written for reviewers and for authors sets out the other two sides of the same process.
Reviewer Guidelines · Instructions for Authors · Aims and Scope · Editorial Board
Journal of Precision Agriculture · ISSN 2998-1506 · Published by Open Access Pub · CC BY 4.0