Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Agricultural Engineering (JAE) is the official journal of the Italian Society of Agricultural Engineering - AIIA - supported by University of Bologna. The subject matter covers a complete and interdisciplinary range of research in engineering for agriculture and biosystems.

 

Section Policies

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical Notes

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Congress Reports

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Our journal follows the CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications about peer-review.

All manuscripts submitted to our journal are critically assessed by external and/or in-house experts in accordance with the principles of peer review, which is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. Each paper is first assigned by the Editors to an appropriate Associate Editor who has knowledge of the field discussed in the manuscript. The first step of manuscript selection takes place entirely in-house and has two major objectives: i) to establish the article’s appropriateness for our journals’ readership; ii) to define the manuscript’s priority ranking relative to other manuscripts under consideration, since the number of papers that the journal receives is much greater than it can publish. If a manuscript does not receive a sufficiently high priority score to warrant publication, the editors will proceed to a quick rejection. The remaining articles are reviewed by at least two different external referees (second step or classical peer review). These are experts in the field who have agreed to provide a rapid assessment of the article. Every effort will be made to provide an editorial decision as to acceptance for publication within 4-6 weeks of submission. Referees may request a revision of the article to be made. In this case, it is generally understood that only one revised version can be considered for a further appraisal under the peer-review system. The Editors of our journal are responsible for the final selection of referees to conduct the peer-review process for that journal. The names of referees will not be made available to authors. However, referees will be informed as to the identity of the authors whose articles are subject to review. All the referees are asked to declare any competing interests they may have in reviewing a manuscript. If on receiving the editorial decision concerning their manuscript authors are not satisfied they are invited to appeal to the Editor. In cases in which this is considered appropriate a second opinion on the manuscript will be requested.

 

Publication Frequency

All papers are published as soon as they have been accepted, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Pre- and post-prints

PAGEPress allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.

 

 

Indexing

PAGEPress is currently working with the major databases and online resources, such as Pubmed/Medline, Pubmedcentral, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), IndexCopernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, OpenJ-Gate, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Sherpa/Romeo, Socolar, to track the Journal of Agricultural Engineering articles. PAGEPress also have agreements with EBSCO Host, Elsevier Scopus, Bibliosan to track this Journal. PAGEPress is also working closely with Thomson Reuters (ISI) to ensure that citation analysis of articles published in this Journal will be available as soon as possible.

 

Publication Ethics

Editorship

PAGEPress strongly support the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors; all individuals collaborating with PAGEPress are strongly invited to comply with this mission.

Ethics

All research articles published by PAGEPress journals are subject to a rigorous ethical standards. Our journals endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the form the peer review process will take; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. PAGEPress endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, too.

Plagiarism
 
The Editorial Board of our journals will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism by using online available tools as eTBLASTor iThenticate®. Any suspected misconduct ends up with a quick rejection and is then reported to the European Science Foundation and to the US Office of Research Integrity.

The European Science Foundation released a Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting papers to our journals are required to adopt these policies.

Below some online resource to help you in understanding plagiarism:

Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.

Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.

Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from negligible to great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.

When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors' right to publish.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist and the reviewer has failed to disclose them or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.

Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

See our policy about Peer Review

See our policy about Privacy

 

CrossMark policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark logo PAGEPress is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking on the CrossMark logo will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

Correction and retraction policy

The NIHR Journals Library follows the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers' (STM) guidelines regarding the Preservation of the Objective Record of Science:

"Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible" 
(STM Guidelines on Preservation of the Objective Record of Science).

Therefore amendments will only be made to the published version of record in exceptional circumstances.

Corrections will be made if there is a serious error in the report or if the error impairs understanding of the report (corrections will not be made for minor errors such as spelling mistakes). The corrected report will replace the original and a correction notice will be published explaining the amendments that have been made.

We follow the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles.

 
© PAGEPress 2008-2017     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185