As an official member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Agricultural & Rural Studies (A&R) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. We strictly adhere to COPE’s Core Practices and international ethical guidelines, ensuring that all stages of the publication process—submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication management—are conducted with rigor, honesty, and respect for the rights of all stakeholders.
Violations of the following ethical standards may result in rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, or reporting to relevant authorities (e.g., institutions, funding agencies).
1. A&R Editorial Team Responsibilities
The A&R Editorial Team (including Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members) is responsible for ensuring fair, unbiased, and ethical handling of all submissions.
1.1 Fair Play
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their academic merit and their relevance to the Journal's scope. A&R does not reach publication decisions based on the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
1.2 Anonymity and Confidentiality
The A&R Editorial Team ensures that anonymity is upheld during the review process, safeguarding the personal details of the author(s) and the reviewer(s). No information about submitted manuscripts and/or personal data (partial or complete) are disclosed to third parties except for potential reviewers and editorial advisers, as appropriate.
Unpublished material and data under no circumstances will be used in the personal research and/or publications of the A&R Editorial Team, except if approved by the author's explicit written consent.
1.3 Conflicts of Interest
Members of the A&R Editorial Team will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts that result in a conflict of interest based on collaborative, competitive or other connections with the author(s), companies, and/or institutions. In such cases, available members of the Editorial Board will oversee the manuscript review process.
1.4 Publication Decisions
The A&R Editorial Team ensure that all submitted manuscripts considered for publication undergo double-blind peer-review by experts in the fields of the scope of the Journal. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the journal's editorial policies, and applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
2. Peer Reviewers' Responsibilities
Peer reviewers are responsible for the reviews they provide and accountable for their accuracy, rigor, and validity, which, as per COPE’s position statement on AI tools, cannot be replicated by a non-human AI. Any breach of confidentiality or trust in the review process constitutes academic misconduct and will be addressed accordingly.
2.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions
A robust, double-blind peer review process assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions. The process also assists the author in improving the manuscript before publication.
2.2 Promptness
Invited referees who either feel unqualified to review the manuscript or think that a timely review is impossible should decline the invitation and notify the A&R Editorial Team so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
2.3 Confidentiality
Irrespective of the review outcome, all manuscripts received are confidential, meaning that sharing this material with another person or uploading it to an AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) for assessment or evaluation would violate the author’s confidentiality, as well as any proprietary and/or data privacy rights.
2.4 Standards of Objectivity
The A&R Editorial Team asks for reviews to conduct their evaluations objectively and constructively engage with papers. No personal criticism and/or attack on the author is acceptable and such conduct may lead to the reviewer's removal from the journal's database. Observations on the manuscripts should be clearly formulated and supported with appropriate arguments.
2.5 Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should search and identify relevant published work not cited by the author(s). Previously reported statements, observations, derivations, or arguments should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should inform the A&R Editorial Team regarding any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data they have personal knowledge.
2.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should declare and not consider evaluating manuscripts with conflict of interest-a situation where the reviewer and the author are: in family relations (e.g. marriage, kinship to second degree), professional relations (e.g. professional subordination), the reviewer and the author collaborated professionally during the two years preceding the year of the review preparation.
3. Authors' Duties
3.1 Reporting Standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Equally, underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Unethical behavior, such as fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements, will not be accepted or tolerated and will result in the barring of authors from future consideration.
3.2 Originality and Plagiarism
Authors submitting their manuscripts for consideration ensure that their work is original, free of plagiarized material, and properly cited and referenced. A&R will not consider works submitted elsewhere for consideration or undergoing evaluation. Multiple, redundant, and/or concurrent publications are considered research/academic malpractice and will not be tolerated.
As a member of CrossRef, A&R uses CrossCheck database to screen the submissions. All submissions must be subjected to CrossRef's plagiarism check by CrossCheck before peer review. Plagiarism check in A&R is solely for the purpose of submission's language arts and does not imply any plagiarism or forging existed. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
3.3 Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should also cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.
3.4 Authorship of Manuscripts
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Those who made significant contributions to the study should be listed as co-authors. In cases that other participated in certain, substantive aspects of the research, they should be named in the ‘Acknowledgements’ Section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission to the Journal for publication. Any changes to the authorship list post-submission require the consent of all study authors.
According to the COPE position statement on Al tools, manuscripts generated through the use of ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs), generative AI, or chatbots do not satisfy the A&R's criteria for authorship, and AI tools cannot be listed as an author. Manuscripts must be written by persons who can account for and claim responsibility for the originality and integrity of the content. Furthermore, the use of AIGC should be fully and accurately disclosed and stated in the ‘Methods’ or ‘Acknowledgments’ section in an open, transparent, and detailed manner. The SCC press subscribes to COPE's position statement regarding authorship and AI tools; see more information here.
3.5 Fundamental Errors in Published Works
Authors have scientific and ethical obligations to promptly notify the A&R Editorial Team in case of significant errors or inaccuracies in their published article. Moreover, they should cooperate with them to either retract the paper or publish an appropriate erratum after explaining how the error impacts the article. Editorial decisions on best conduct are subject to the nature of the error and include: (1) a formal note or correction or (2) full retraction. In both cases, there should be an explicit note on the affected parts of the article.
3.6 Citation Policy
A&R complies with I4OC standards for open citations. Authors should ensure that material from other sources (including their own published work) is appropriately cited and appropriate permissions are obtained where relevant.
Authors should not excessively self-cite, cite advertisements or advertorial material, or copy references from works they have not read.
Similarly, authors should not preferentially cite their or their friends' peers' or institutions' publications.
Under COPE guidelines, we expect that "original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations." This condition also applies to an author's own work. COPE have produced a discussion document on citation manipulation with recommendations for best practice.
4. Updating Published Papers
A&R is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. Research doesn’t stand still: even after publication, articles can be updated with supplementary data or corrections. It’s important to know if the content being cited has been updated, corrected, or retracted. Crossmark makes this information more visible to readers.
We proactively correct discovered scientific errors or ethical issues in published papers and adhere to standardized, transparent criteria for all updates. By introducing the CrossMark logo, A&R commits to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of its published content; proactively alerting readers to any changes, updates, or corrections to the content over time. Clicking the CrossMark logo on an A&R document will reveal its current status (e.g., "current," "retracted," or "corrected") and may include additional publication-record details, such as links to errata, retractions, or updated versions.
A&R ensures all updates (corrections, retractions) are conducted transparently, with clear communication to authors, readers, and indexing databases, to uphold the credibility of scholarly publishing.
4.1 Minor Errors
Minor errors (such as spelling, grammar, spacing errors) that do not affect readability or meaning do not qualify as updates, regardless of when or by whom the error was introduced.
4.2 Metadata Errors
If A&R Editorial Office considers it a reasonable request, it may complete a request to correct a paper metadata error (such as title, author name, abstract). Once approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on A&R website. After that, all relevant index databases are notified to ensure that the database version has also been revised.
4.3 Corrections
In the following situations, a request to correct errors can be completed, but it must also include issuing an appropriate erratum:
(1) Errors that may affect scientific interpretation. For examples: error in a misleading section of an otherwise reliable publication; data or interpretation errors (which do not affect the final conclusion).
(2) Scientifically relevant formatting changes. For example: missing or unclear figures/tables.
(3) Addition or removal of an author from authorship list (including addition or removal of entire affiliations).
(4) Addition or removal of an entire reference.
(5) Addition or removal of a significant amount of text within the back matter. For example: funding, author contributions, acknowledgements.
Once the update request is approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on A&R website, along with the publication of a Correction. This erratum is a separate publication, linked to an updated paper, but published in the latest issue of the journal. The aim of the correction is to inform all readers that there have been significant changes to the paper and that a revised version is now available on the website. After these updates, all relevant index databases are notified to ensure that the database version has also been revised.
4.4 Retractions
A&R is committed to maintaining the integrity of the academic record and therefore may retract a manuscript if necessary. A&R always follows the recommendations of the COPE for retraction.
A&R has always adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards any academic misconduct that violates academic morals and ethics, such as inadvertent errors in the research process, serious ethical violations, falsification of data, massive plagiarism, etc. Any manuscript containing the aforementioned academic misconduct will be retracted by A&R as soon as it is discovered.
If a Retraction is published, the original publication is amended with a “RETRACTED” watermark but will still be available on A&R’s website for future reference. However, retracted articles should not be cited and used for further research, as they cannot be relied upon. Retractions are published using the same authorship and affiliation as the paper being retracted, so that the notice and the original retracted paper can be properly found by readers within indexing databases. The Retraction notice will also be published in the current Issue of A&R. Partial Retractions might be published in cases where results are only partially wrong.
A paper will only be completely removed from A&R’s website and relevant indexing databases in very exceptional circumstances, where leaving it online would constitute an illegal act or be likely to lead to significant harm.
5. Appeals & Complaints
5.1 Appeals
Closely adhering to COPE policies, A&R has a robust Appeals procedure that allows authors to challenge editorial decisions they perceive as unfair or incorrect.
Submitting an Appeal
In case authors disagree with the decision of the Journal Editor (a result of the peer-review process), they can submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should logically outline why the author(s) believe the editorial decision was unfair and/or unjustified.
Steps Following a Formal Appeal:
(1) Editorial Review: The appeal is reviewed by a designated editorial board member who was not involved in the initial decision-making process. This ensures impartiality and fairness in the review of the appeal.
(2) Evaluation: The designated board member evaluates the grounds of the appeal, considering whether the decision was consistent with the Journal's policies, ethical guidelines, and standards of peer review. They assess whether procedural errors, biases, or misunderstandings may have influenced the decision.
(3) Tracing the Route: If the case requires further attention, the Appeal Officer may contact the reviewers to obtain their perspectives and invite additional comments regarding the manuscript and the initial decision.
(4) Decision: A decision will be made based on the input obtained to uphold or overturn the original decision. Disclosure of the decision and its rationale will be communicated to the authors.
(5) Paperwork Trail: Throughout the process, a documentation record will be kept for transparency of the appeal process and accountability for the final decision.
(6) Decision: The final decision is final and binding for all parties. COPE may mediate cases that leave the authors unsatisfied, with the power remaining in their prerogative.
5.2 Complaints
Similarly, authors may submit formal complaints against any individual in connection with the Journal, including authors, reviewers, the advisory and/or editorial board, and the Journal's editorial office. Such complaints may pertain to ethical issues, problems with the publication process or other administrative operations, or editorial decisions (cf. also Appeals, above).
In case of a Complaint, the journal’s editorial office will promptly acknowledge receipt and open a formal case disclosing the steps of the procedure. In particular:
Step 1: Investigation | A formal investigation into the complaint will take place under the general guidance of an Editor/Investigator, who will review the matter impartially and objectively.
Step 2: Merit | Based on COPE guidelines, the Investigator will assess the merit of the complaint, taking into account the severity of the alleged misconduct, breach of publication ethics, and impact on the integrity of academic research.
Step 3: Decision | Following the investigation, the Investigator will judge the case, focusing mainly on upholding publication ethics. They may request certain actions such as: issuing corrections or retractions, revising editorial decisions, providing clarifications, or implementing changes to policies or procedures. The outcome of the investigation will be clearly communication with all involved parties, along with details on the decision’s rationale and further actions. The complainant may appeal the decision under firm grounds of establishing a case.
A paper trail of each complaint will be available for interested parties to protect the transparency of the proceedings.
A&R is dedicated to fostering trust, integrity, and excellence in agricultural and rural research through rigorous ethical oversight. For further inquiries, contact: yxwu@sccpress.com
