The journal covers the following scientific areas:
• development of scientific foundations for environmentally safe machine-based technologies for crop and livestock production;
• creation of machinery and equipment for addressing environmental challenges in agricultural production;
• energy and resource conservation and ecological issues of the agro-industrial complex and rural areas;
• digital systems, monitoring, assessment, forecasting and management of sustainable development of agricultural ecosystems.
Core Journal Objectives:
• presenting the results from research, applied and experimental studies by national and foreign scholars in the field that integrates engineering and ecological principles in agricultural production;
• providing early-career researchers and doctoral candidates with a platform to present their findings;
• strengthening the scientific component of academic environment and promoting key achievements in agricultural engineering science relating to resource conservation and agroecosystem ecology;
• facilitating discussions, knowledge exchange and experience sharing on current issues in the field of agricultural production ecology.
- ECOLOGY OF AGROSYSTEMS
- ECOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGIES IN CROP PRODUCTION
- ECOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGIES IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
- ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT IN AGRO-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Four issues per year
The Open Access Policy of AgroEcoEngineering Journal complies with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). This means that the published articles are publicly available on the internet. Users are free to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search for, link to, index, pass as data to software, and use the articles for any legal purpose without any financial, legal, or technical restrictions, except those inherent to accessing the internet. The journal’s content is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- Scientific Electronic Library (elibrary.ru)
To enhance the quality and coherence of the published content with the scientific and thematic focus of the journal, all submitted manuscripts follow a peer-review procedure.
Experts with the most relevant scientific expertise to the article’s subject matter are invited for reviewing.
The Deputy Editor-in-Chief assigns the appropriate reviewer(s) for each manuscript.
Authors or co-authors of the submitted manuscript, as well as the author's doctoral supervisor, cannot serve as reviewers for that manuscript.
Manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review. It means the reviewers receive manuscripts without author information, whilst authors remain unaware of reviewer identities. The Editorial Office manages all correspondence between the authors and reviewers.
The Technical Editor assesses the compliance of the manuscript and supporting documents with formatting requirements. If the Technical Editor identified inconsistencies, he provides the authors with correction guidance. The manuscripts that fail to meet requirements after revision will not be considered for publication.
Manuscripts that meet the requirements are sent to the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief for an initial assessment. After that, they are passed on to two reviewers assigned.
Peer review may involve AgroEcoEngineering Editorial Board members or external reviewers who are the leading specialists in the relevant subject areas.
Reviewers are notified that manuscripts constitute the authors' intellectual property and contain not to be divulged information. The review process has a confidential character.
Reviewers should not disclose manuscript contents before publication; transfer the manuscript to other persons without the authorization of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief; or utilise the manuscript content for personal benefit prior to its publication.
Reviewers may decline review assignments where clear conflict of interest exist.
The Technical Editor determines the review timeframes for each case based on the priority of timely publication.
Reviews are stored in the Editorial Office for 5 years. Review copies are provided to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon request. Reviews with reviewers’ identities may be supplied to the Expert Councils of State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles (VAK) upon request.
Reviews must provide an unbiased assessment of manuscripts and a comprehensive analysis of their scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses. Reviews follow a prescribed format.
Review conclusions must include the reasoned judgements on the manuscript in all and the clear recommendations from four options:
- recommend for publication without revision;
- recommend for publication after revision following the reviewer’s comments;
- recommend for publication after substantial reworking (with re-review)
- reject (here the reviewer’s justification is required).
Where revision is required, the manuscripts are returned to authors for amendment. Authors must incorporate all necessary corrections and return the revised manuscript to the Editorial Office with a cover letter addressing reviewer comments or providing reasoned objections within 7 calendar days of email notification. Revised manuscripts are sent for re-review to the same or another reviewer at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.
Where the authors disagree with the reviewer comments, they may request re-review or withdraw their manuscript, providing written notification to the Editorial Office and receiving confirmation of withdrawal.
Where irreconcilable differences arise between the authors and reviewers, the Editorial Office may commission an extra review. Following a second negative review, the manuscript is definitively rejected.
Final publication decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief based on peer reviews and the Editorial Board opinions.
Following acceptance decisions, the Editorial Office informs the authors and sets the publication timelines.
Manuscripts with two negative reviews from different reviewers, or one negative review of the revised manuscript, are rejected.
Where the authors fail to address substantive reviewer comments or give an adequate justification, the manuscripts are not accepted for publication. In this case, the Editorial Office sends a reasoned rejection notice or review copies to authors.
The journal is registered in the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI).
The Editorial Board of AgroEcoEngineering Journal follows the international ethical rules of publishing the scholarly content based on recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics).
The ethics of scientific publishing is a system of professional conduct norms. They govern the relationships amongst authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and the scientific community throughout creation, dissemination, and use of scientific publications.
- Obligations (Responsibility) of Authors
When submitting the manuscripts to AgroEcoEngineering Scientific Journal the authors accept personal responsibility for the novelty and reliability of research findings. This requires adherence to the following principles.
Authors must present reliable research results and convey the significance of their research in an unbiased manner. Manuscripts should contain sufficient information to allow other researchers to verify and replicate the experiments. False or knowingly erroneous statements are not acceptable.
Authors may be requested for the relevant initial data during the manuscript review or editing. They must be prepared to provide open access to such data where feasible and, in any case, retain these data for three years following publication.
Authors should submit only original work. Borrowed material or statements must be appropriately attributed. Plagiarism in any form is unethical and unacceptable, including improper citations, paraphrasing or appropriating others' research findings.
Authors should confirm their work is being published for the first time. Where manuscript elements have appeared previously, authors are required to cite the earlier work and explain how the new work substantially differs. Verbatim self-plagiarism and paraphrasing the previous work are unacceptable and may serve only as the basis for new conclusions. Simultaneous submission to several journals constitutes unethical conduct and is unacceptable.
Authors should acknowledge contributions from all individuals who in some way influenced the research, particularly by referencing the works significant to the study. Information obtained privately through conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties should not be used without explicit written permission from its source.
Authorship should be limited to those making substantial contribution to research concept, design, execution or interpretation. All substantial contributors must be listed as co-authors. Those participating in significant research aspects should appear in the contributor list. Authors must ensure all co-authors and contributors are properly listed, and that co-authors have reviewed, approved and consented to publication of the final manuscript.
All authors should disclose any financial or other significant conflicts of interests that may affect the research results or their interpretation.
Potential conflicts requiring disclosure include employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, grants and other financial support. Potential conflicts of interests and all project-funding sources should be disclosed at the earliest opportunity.
Where authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies during the manuscript consideration or following its publication, they should notify the Editorial Office immediately.
- Obligations (Responsibility) of the Editorial Office
The Editorial Office accepts responsibility to authors, reviewers, the scientific community and the founder of the journal for final decision on publishing the scientific article manuscript.
Publication decisions are based on manuscript originality, content accuracy, scientific significance and relevance, provided the manuscript has not been published elsewhere.
All manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review without disclosing the reviewer identities to authors. This enables experts to express free and reasoned critical assessments of the material’s quality, clarity, relevance to the journal's scope, novelty, and reliability of findings. The reviewer recommendations form the basis for final publication decisions.
The Editorial Office evaluates manuscripts solely on scientific merit, regardless of authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political views.
Publication decisions follow the journal policy whilst complying with the copyright legislation.
Accepted articles are published with open access; authors retain the copyright.
The Editorial Office does not publish the final article version without the author’s approval.
All participants in the editorial and publishing process should
- comply with the Russian legislation on information protection, including author and reviewer personal data protection;
- maintain confidentiality and refrain from disclosing the manuscript information or content to anyone beyond authors, reviewers, potential reviewers and scientific consultants unless necessary.
Unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts cannot be used in personal research without the written author’s consent. Information or ideas obtained during the review related to potential advantages must remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain.
- Obligations (Responsibility) of Reviewers
Peer review assists the editors in decision-making and, through constructive collaboration between the Editorial Office and the authors, helps the authors in improving their manuscripts.
Where assigned reviewers consider their qualifications insufficient, anticipate the timing difficulties, or face the conflict of interest, they must notify the Editorial Office before beginning the manuscript assessment.
All submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Showing manuscripts to other reviewers or discussing them with other experts without prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief is unacceptable.
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and with reason.
Reviewers should identify the relevant published works in the manuscript under consideration that the authors have not attributed. Previously used statements, conclusions or arguments must be properly cited. Reviewers should also alert the editors to significant or partial similarity of the reviewed manuscript with other publications known to them.
All reviewers must identify plagiarism and other unethical practices. Additionally, reviewers are responsible for providing constructive feedback to the authors and the Editorial Office.
Unpublished materials found in reviewed manuscripts should not be used in reviewers' own research without the author’s written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained during review must remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain. Reviewers must not participate in reviewing manuscripts in which they have personal interest.
Reviews analyse the manuscript's compliance with the journal's requirements for the subject matter and length. They also evaluate the scientific and technical novelty of the work, the writing quality and clarity of the text, the cogency of the experimental data presented, and the comprehensiveness of the references used.
The review outcome is the conclusion on publication suitability of the manuscript – either in submitted form, following revision, after substantial reworking (with re-review), or rejection.
Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution “Federal Scientific Agroengineering Center VIM” (FSAC VIM)
Editorial Board and Editorial Office
Institute for Engineering and Environmental Problems in Agricultural Production (IEEP) - branch of FSAC VIM, Saint Petersburg
Publication in AgroEcoEngineering Journal is free. The journal does not charge the authors for preparing, layout, and printing of manuscripts.
Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts cannot not be used in personal research without the author’s written consent.
Information or ideas obtained during review and related to potential advantages should remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain.
Reviewers must not participate in the manuscript consideration where conflict of interest exists due to competitive, collaborative or other interactions and relationships with authors, companies or organisations associated with the submitted manuscript.
All publishing process participants should avoid conflict of interest in any form at any manuscript preparation stage. Where conflicts arise, the parties should take all necessary measures to restore the affected parties' rights.
The Editorial Office verifies submitted materials using the Antiplagiat system. Where extensive improper attribution is detected, the Editorial Office follows COPE guidelines
As part of the submission process, the authors are required to confirm that their manuscript has not been previously published or submitted to another scientific journal. After a manuscript has been published in AgroEcoEngineering Journal, the Editorial Office suggests that authors use the link to the article on the journal's website when sharing the article on personal or public websites.
Before the acceptance and publication in AgroEcoEngineering Journal, the authors may make their manuscripts available as preprints on personal or public websites not affiliated with other publishers.