Editorial process

Manuscripts will be received only by the platform through the link "Send an article" and will correspond to the document type of editorial (only by invitation), scientific article, review (only by invitation) and technical note. They must be sent in the journal’s template.

For regular issues see here.

For special issues see here. 

All manuscripts will be examined by a plagiarism detection software, called Compilatio, and filtered from author identification data, before starting the editorial process.

Subsequently, the editors-in-chief will assign a section editor, who will declare no conflict of interest with the authors. The editors of Agrociencia Uruguay are periodically evaluated and have a proven scientific track record.

The manuscript will then be sent to at least two peer reviewers external to the publishing institutions (Agronomy College and INIA), in a double-blind system and in accordance with the code of ethics of "COPE".

Double-blind peer review is a process in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other, ensuring an impartial evaluation of manuscripts.

This process aims to prevent bias and/or discrimination, including those related to gender, institutional affiliation, and other factors. Double-blind review promotes fairness and ensures that editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality of the submissions, fostering an inclusive and equitable environment in scientific communication. This system reinforces the journal's commitment to integrity and equality in academic publishing.

The authors are responsible for the content presented in the article and do not represent the opinion or position of the journal. At any stage of the editorial process, authors may be asked to make corrections.

Once the manuscript has been accepted by the section editors, the bibliographic and style corrections begin, as well as the layout. 

Finally, the article is published and broadcasted correspondingly.

 

Disclaimer: In the event that irregularities are detected at stages subsequent to the approval of the article, it may be returned to previous stages of the editorial process or, eventually, rejected.

Likewise, prolonged delays or the lack of response from the authors regarding correction requests may affect the continuity of the process and may eventually lead to the rejection of the article.