Peer review procedure

The main stages of peer review of articles in the scientific journal ‘Grain Crops’:

1. Peer review of scientific articles prior to publication in the scientific journal ‘Grain Crops’ is aimed at ensuring and improving the scientific level of the publication.
2. To avoid prejudice, the review process is conducted anonymously for both the reviewer and the author(s) (double-blind peer review).
3. The initial evaluation of scientific materials submitted to the editorial office is based on the formal characteristics of the article in accordance with the editorial requirements (tab ‘For authors’).
4. The anti-plagiarism system for checking the uniqueness of the text using StrikePlagiarism.com software is a mandatory step before peer review.
5. The Editor-in-Chief, in coordination with the Editorial Board, appoints reviewers for the submitted manuscripts, who are responsible for the qualitative assessment of these materials.
6. Reviewers' responsibilities:

• indicate the relevance of the research in the submitted publications;
• determine the correctness of the selected methods of statistical evaluation of the obtained data;
• evaluate the scientific style of the submitted materials;
• indicate the completeness and correctness of the conclusions;
• formulate a substantiated conclusion regarding the possibility of publication of the reviewed work.

7. At the next stage, after careful analysis, reviewers provide a general conclusion:

• the article is recommended for publication;
• the article is recommended for publication after revision, taking into account comments and suggestions;
• not recommended for publication.

In the final conclusion, the reviewer is required to indicate in the review the arguments that influenced their decision.

In the event that the author(s) disagree with the reviewer's final conclusion, the Editorial Board retains the right to appoint an additional reviewer, whose decision shall be final, regardless of any further arguments or explanations provided by the author(s).

8. The reviewer sends the scan copy of the review, prepared in accordance with the requirements, to the editorial office's email address.
9. The editorial office undertakes to send the author(s) an electronic copy of the review (preserving the anonymity of the reviewer's personal data) with a conclusion regarding publication.
10. The reviewers' conclusions are filled out in accordance with the established review form.
11. All reviews are stored in the Editorial Office's archive.

Peer review period is determined by the order and number of manuscripts submitted to the editorial office. Manuscripts that highlight particularly relevant scientific issues and contain fundamentally new information may be published out of turn by decision of the Editorial Board.

The peer review period (from the date of receipt of the manuscript for review) ranges from one to two months. Peer review periods depend on the complexity of the article.