Agricultural & Rural Studies (A&R) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to uphold the highest standards of academic quality. The journal's editorial workflow, supported by the Public Knowledge Platform (PKP), ensures a systematic progression from submission to publication.
All articles accepted for publication will undergo evaluation by a minimum of two independent external reviewers. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Committed to both quality and efficiency, A&R aims to provide an initial decision within three months of submission and publishes four issues per year.
1. Register
Authors intending to submit their work for peer review in A&R are required to complete registration on our platform.
Registered users gain access to a suite of academic support features: real-time updates on manuscript status, automated notifications for new publications, and opportunities to engage with an expanding interdisciplinary community focused on agricultural development, rural revitalization, and farming/farmer-related policies. Central to A&R’s mission is the advancement of the Scholar Community Center (SCC) as a catalyst for transformative change in these domains.
At the SCC, we uphold the highest standards of privacy protection. A&R is dedicated to safeguarding the confidentiality of all authors, readers, reviewers, and editors; personal information will be utilized exclusively for editorial processes.
To maximize your engagement with our academic ecosystem, we strongly encourage immediate registration. Rest assured, the process is designed to be efficient and streamlined, minimizing administrative burden while ensuring seamless integration into our scholarly network.
Please consider registering now!
2. Submit
After logging into the A&R website (https://sccpress.com/ars), the corresponding author or submitting author may proceed by following the step-by-step instructions to upload the manuscript including Title Page and Cover Letter. Please note that a manuscript must not be under consideration by another journal or submitted to multiple journals simultaneously during its evaluation period with A&R. This ensures compliance with ethical publishing standards and avoids conflicts in the peer-review process.
3. Pre-check
The initial screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Assistant and an editorial pre-check performed by Associate Editor.
3.1 Pre-check by Editorial Assistant
The editorial assistant checks that the manuscript adheres to the A&R’s Author Guidelines requirements. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point. In detail, the editorial assistant:
(1) Conducts an initial screening of the manuscript and determines the article type (Perspective, Review, Original Research, or Commentary).
(2) Checks the abstract (max. 250 words), keywords (4 to 6) and article’s word limit according to the different types of articles.
(3) Checks the reference style. Articles submitted to the A&R should follow the APA citation/bibliography format.
(4) Ensures anonymity. As the A&R conducts a double-blind peer-review, submissions should be free of personal data (i.e., name, affiliation) or other indications of identity (e.g., footnotes, acknowledgements, self-citations. The submitted manuscript in .doc(x) format should uphold anonymity.
(5) Checks Title Page and Cover Letter.
(6) Conducts due diligence for academic integrity. Following the A&R's policy, the manuscript is checked for plagiarism using iThenticate. Manuscript with similarity score of more than 20 percent will be unconditionally rejected.
3.2 Pre-check by Associate Editor
Associate Editor assesses the manuscript, considering its scope, originality and merits. Associate Editor may reject the manuscript at this stage.
Desk rejection, where editors reject manuscripts without peer review, typically occurs under these circumstances: scope mismatch, methodological flaws, lack of novelty, poor structural/technical quality or ethical concerns. Desk rejection is a A&R’s first-line filter to prioritize resources for review-worthy work.
A special care is taken that the initial appraisal does not last more than necessary.
4. Peer-Review (Double-Blind)
A&R employs a double-blind peer-review process, wherein the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review. This mechanism safeguards impartiality by mitigating potential biases related to authors' seniority, gender, institutional affiliation, geographic origin, or other personal characteristics, thereby ensuring a fair and objective evaluation focused solely on academic merit.
4.1 Reviewer Selection and Screening Criteria
Upon the decision to proceed with peer review, the corresponding author will be notified. The handling editor (Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor) will assign the manuscript to a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. While reviewers are primarily selected from our database of external experts, an Editorial Board member may occasionally be invited in a strictly independent capacity, always in conjunction with at least two fully external reviewers.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria:
(1) Scope Conformity: Does the manuscript align with A&R's stated aims, scope, and strategic priorities?
(2) Scientific Novelty: Does the manuscript say something new and interesting? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one?
(3) Title Specificity: Is the title concise, accurate, and inclusive of key terminology? Does it clearly articulate the study’s significance and conceptual rigor?
(4) Abstract Precision: Does the abstract comprehensively yet succinctly reflect all critical components of the manuscript?
(5) Introduction Rigor: Are research objectives and hypotheses explicitly stated? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?
(6) Methodological Transparency: Are data collection protocols, experimental designs, and analytical methods adequately described to ensure reproducibility? Are novel methodologies explained with sufficient technical detail? Is equipment/material sourcing and sampling strategy adequately justified? Are measurement precision and data recording protocols explicitly defined?
(7) Analytical rigor: Does the manuscript demonstrate soundness in the way it has been researched and/or argued?
(8) Results Presentation: Are findings organized logically with appropriate statistical support and visualization?
(9) Conclusion Validity: Do conclusions derive directly from the data, avoiding overinterpretation?
(10) Research applications: Does the manuscript suggest areas for further research? Or practical implications - are implications for practitioners clearly drawn out?
(11) Visual Communication: Are figures/tables essential, original, and formatted consistently with A&R guidelines?
(12) Clarity and readability: Do language issues impede comprehension of the methodological or conceptual arguments?
While primary ethical oversight rests with A&R, reviewers are uniquely positioned to identify potential misconduct through domain-specific scrutiny. As a reviewer, you are not responsible for spotting ethics issues in manuscripts but with your knowledge and expertise, you are often best placed to spot cases of Interest conflict, fraud, plagiarism or possible defamation/libel. If you have reason to suspect ethical misconduct – either deliberate or accidental – please let the A&R know as soon as possible.
4.2 Review Report and Decision Recommendation
The reviewers should carefully read the manuscript and provide detailed and constructive feedback. The Associate Editor then synthesizes these reports, evaluates the manuscript's scientific validity, and provides a well-reasoned recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on this recommendation.
The most common recommendation criteria are:
(1) Accept
(2) Minor revisions required
(3) Major revisions required
(4) Reject
4.3 Review Support and Quality Assurance
The handling editor monitors the review progress. The Editorial Office supports this process by: sending reminders to reviewers, verifying the completeness of review reports, and forwarding decisions to authors.
During the review process, the handling editor may require author(s) to provide additional information (including raw data) if they are necessary for the evaluation of the manuscript. These materials should be kept confidential and must not be used for any other purposes.
In the case that the author(s) has(have) serious and reasonable objections to the reviews, a designated editorial board member who was not involved in the initial decision-making process shall assess the contested review(s) for adherence to principles of scholarly rigor and impartiality. Should this assessment yield substantiated concerns regarding the review's impartiality or methodological soundness, the Editor-in-Chief shall initiate an additional independent review process by assigning one or more new reviewers.
If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer to get an extra expert opinion before making a decision. The manuscript must receive two positive reports to proceed to the next stage.
5. Editor-in-Chief Decision
The final decision on a manuscript rest solely with the Editor-in-Chief and will be one of the following:
(1) Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without revisions. The corresponding author will receive a certificate of acceptance.
(2) Minor Revision: The manuscript is likely to be accepted after minor revisions are addressed to the satisfaction of the editors.
(3) Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo a further round of peer review.
(4) Reject: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
If a revision is invited, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, accompanied by a point-by-point response letter detailing how all comments from the reviewers and editors have been addressed. Failure to meet the deadline will result in the manuscript's rejection.
5.1 Minor Revisions
Minor revisions typically involve small adjustments to the manuscript, such as:
(1) Meeting author guidelines (e.g., slight word count reduction).
(2) Formatting corrections (e.g., table/figure labeling).
(3) Strengthening literature review coverage.
(4) Brief elaboration on research findings.
5.2 Major Revisions
Major revisions require substantial changes that may take weeks or months to complete. Common requests include:
(1) Addressing methodological flaws.
(2) Collecting additional data.
(3) Enhanced analytical rigor.
(4) Refining the research question to enhance originality.
6. Copy editing and English Editing
6.1 Copy Editing
Copy editing is a meticulous process focused on refining the technical and structural elements of a manuscript. It involves correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax errors, as well as addressing inconsistencies in tone, style, and phrasing. Beyond error correction, copy editors optimize readability by streamlining awkward or redundant expressions, ensuring alignment with disciplinary terminology, and organizing complex arguments into logical, hierarchical structures. This stage also prepares the text for typesetting by standardizing formatting (e.g., headings, citations) to meet the journal’s publication standards. Crucially, copy editing preserves the author’s original voice and intent while elevating the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and intellectual rigor. Edits are limited to resolving ambiguities or factual inaccuracies; external stylistic preferences are not imposed.
6.2 English Editing
English editing focuses on enhancing the linguistic quality and academic precision of the manuscript, particularly for non-native English speakers or works requiring refinement to meet international publication standards. This stage goes beyond basic grammar correction to improve fluency, clarity, and professionalism in academic expression. English editors may rephrase unclear sentences, strengthen arguments with more precise vocabulary, and ensure consistency in tone (e.g., formal, objective) appropriate for scholarly discourse. They also verify that technical terms align with disciplinary norms and that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s stylistic guidelines (e.g., passive vs. active voice, use of abbreviations). The goal is to elevate the manuscript’s readability and credibility, ensuring it communicates research effectively to a global academic audience.
A&R recognizes the use of AI tools for "AI-assisted English editing," which we define as the application of large language models (LLMs) or other AI technologies to enhance human-generated text by improving readability, refining style, and ensuring grammatical accuracy. When used within this defined scope—specifically addressing errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone, and excluding generative drafting of new content—such AI assistance does not require formal declaration. The final text remains the sole responsibility of the human author.
7. Final Proofs
Final proofs constitute the terminal phase in the scholarly publication workflow, wherein authors meticulously scrutinize their manuscript prior to publication. The main purposes of this process include:
(1) Error Detection and Rectification: Authors systematically identify and correct typographical, grammatical, or formatting anomalies inadvertently introduced during the typesetting process. This includes verification of textual consistency, numerical accuracy, and adherence to journal-specific style guidelines.
(2) Final Modifications: It provides authors with a last opportunity to make changes or corrections to their work.
(3) Responding to Editor Queries: Authors must comprehensively respond to specific queries or critiques articulated by editorial personnel, ensuring all concerns regarding methodological transparency, analytical robustness, or contextual relevance are resolved.
(4) Quality Assurance: This step ensures that the paper meets the required standards for publication, including the accuracy of references and funding acknowledgments.
Overall, author proofreading is crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publications. Consequently, this process epitomizes the collaborative ethos between authors and publishers in advancing verifiable knowledge dissemination.
8. Online Publication
Upon successful completion of all prior stages in the publication workflow and upon receipt of formal author approval, the manuscript shall be released on the A&R platform under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/license/by/4.0/). Following dissemination, the Editorial Office retains responsibility for ongoing oversight, including the tracking of post-publication updates and the implementation of critical revisions necessitated by reader feedback, erratum reporting, or evolving scholarly consensus. Such adjustments, if required, will be executed in compliance with the journal’s editorial guidelines to ensure the integrity and currency of the published record.
9. Post-Publication: Maximizing Your Research Impact
Your article’s publication in A&R is not an endpoint, but the beginning of its journey toward broader recognition and real-world influence. We view impact as a shared endeavor: while your active role in dissemination is essential, our editorial office is your committed partner in ensuring your work reaches academic, public, and policy audiences effectively.
9.1 Confirm Publication & Access
Verify the final version and its metadata (title, authors, DOI) on the journal platform to ensure accurate indexing. As a fully open-access journal, A&R makes your work immediately free to read worldwide, supporting wide discoverability and citation potential.
9.2 Share Your Work Strategically (Author-Led)
Expand reach through your own channels:
(1) Share the DOI link on academic/social platforms (ResearchGate, LinkedIn, X, etc.).
(2) Deposit the article in your institutional repository and highlight it internally.
(3) Notify co-authors, colleagues, and relevant networks in your field.
9.3 Journal-Supported Outreach (Our Collaborative Role)
For selected articles—especially those with high relevance or innovation—our editorial team initiates additional promotion:
(1) Media Outreach: We develop press releases and pitch stories to science, agricultural, and policy media outlets.
(2) Policy Translation: We collaborate with authors to prepare non-technical policy briefs for government, NGO, and industry stakeholders.
(3) Academic & Public Engagement: We feature articles in our social media, newsletters, and conferences, and may invite authors to present in webinars or public events.
9.4 Engage with Feedback & Track Impact
(1) Monitor and professionally respond to post-publication comments on journal or scholarly forums.
(2) Use tools like Google Scholar Alerts to follow citations; you may also request article-level metrics (downloads, Altmetric attention score) from our editorial office.
9.5 Maintain Integrity in Communication
In all post-publication outreach—whether through media, presentations, or online summaries—ensure that findings are represented accurately, clearly, and without overstatement.
9.6 Build on Your Publication
Use your published work as a foundation for further scholarship: consider follow-up studies, review articles, or public-facing summaries. We welcome updates on new developments arising from your A&R publication.
By combining your dissemination efforts with our structured outreach support, we can together extend the visibility, application, and legacy of your research—advancing both scholarly discourse and tangible progress in agricultural sustainability, rural revitalization & farmer well-being.