As an official member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Agricultural & Rural Studies (A&R) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. We strictly adhere to COPE’s Core Practices and international ethical guidelines, ensuring that all stages of the publication process—submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication management—are conducted with rigor, honesty, and respect for the rights of all stakeholders.
Violations of the following ethical standards may result in rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, or reporting to relevant authorities (e.g., institutions, funding agencies).
1. A&R Editorial Team Responsibilities
The A&R Editorial Team (including Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members) is responsible for ensuring fair, unbiased, and ethical handling of all submissions.
1.1 Fair Play
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their academic merit and their relevance to the Journal's scope. A&R does not reach publication decisions based on the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
1.2 Anonymity and Confidentiality
The A&R Editorial Team ensures that anonymity is upheld during the review process, safeguarding the personal details of both authors and reviewers. No information about submitted manuscripts or personal data (partial or complete) is disclosed to third parties except for potential reviewers and editorial advisers, as appropriate.
Unpublished material and data will under no circumstances be used in the personal research or publications of the A&R Editorial Team, except with the author's explicit written consent.
1.3 Conflicts of Interest
Members of the A&R Editorial Team will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts that result in a conflict of interest based on collaborative, competitive or other connections with the author(s), companies, and/or institutions. In such cases, available members of the Editorial Board will oversee the manuscript review process.
1.4 Publication Decisions
The A&R Editorial Team ensures that all submitted manuscripts considered for publication undergo double-blind peer-review by experts within the Journal's scope. The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the journal's editorial policies, and applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
1.5 Editorial use of AI
A&R editors may use AI tools only for administrative and quality-control tasks (e.g., plagiarism/similarity screening, format checks, reviewer discovery, statistical screening) under secure, confidentiality-preserving systems and with human oversight. Manuscripts, author data, reviewer reports, and decision letters must not be uploaded to public or unvetted generative AI services. All editorial acceptance/rejection decisions are made by human editors; AI outputs may inform but never replace editorial judgement. Any editor use of AI that affects author communication or screening is recorded and reviewed under this Policy.
2. Peer Reviewers' Responsibilities
Peer reviewers are responsible for the reviews they provide and accountable for their accuracy, rigor, and validity, which, as per COPE’s position statement on AI tools, cannot be replicated by a non-human AI. Any breach of confidentiality or trust in the review process constitutes academic misconduct and will be addressed accordingly.
2.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions
A robust, double-blind peer review process assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions. The process also assists the author in improving the manuscript before publication.
2.2 Promptness
Invited referees who either feel unqualified to review the manuscript or think that a timely review is impossible should decline the invitation and notify the A&R Editorial Team so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
2.3 Confidentiality and AI
Manuscripts under review are treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, upload, or input unpublished manuscripts, excerpts, or supplementary materials into any AI/LLM tool (including but not limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar platforms) for analysis, summarization, translation, or any other processing of manuscript content. Such uploads constitute a severe breach of confidentiality.
Reviewers may use AI tools solely to improve the language and readability of their own review comments. However, this is strictly limited to grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone, and must not involve generative drafting of new content or substantive scientific evaluation. To use such tools, reviewers must ensure that no manuscript text is transmitted to third-party AI services (e.g., using local/offline tools or built-in editors without cloud retention). The use of AI for language polishing of the reviewer's own comments must be disclosed in the review report or communicated to the editorial office (e.g., "Language of this review was polished using [Tool Name]; no manuscript content was uploaded.").
2.4 Standards of Objectivity
The A&R Editorial Team asks reviewers to conduct their evaluations objectively and constructively engage with papers. Personal criticism and/or attacks on the author are unacceptable and such conduct may lead to the reviewer's removal from the journal's database. Observations on the manuscripts should be clearly formulated and supported with appropriate arguments.
2.5 Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should search and identify relevant published work not cited by the author(s). Previously reported statements, observations, derivations, or arguments should be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should inform the A&R Editorial Team regarding any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
2.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should declare any conflict of interest and recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts where such a conflict exists—for example, where the reviewer and author are related by family (e.g., marriage, kinship to second degree), connected by professional relations (e.g., subordination), or have collaborated professionally within two years preceding the review.
3. Authors' Duties
3.1 Reporting Standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Equally, underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Manuscripts submitted for consideration should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Unethical behavior, such as fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements, will not be accepted or tolerated and will result in the barring of authors from future consideration.
3.2 Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is original, free of plagiarized material, and properly cited and referenced. A&R will not consider manuscripts that have been submitted elsewhere or are under simultaneous evaluation by another journal. Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications constitute research/academic malpractice and will not be tolerated.
As a member of Crossref, A&R uses the CrossCheck database to screen all submissions for plagiarism prior to peer review. Plagiarism screening is a standard editorial procedure and does not imply any presumption of misconduct. If plagiarism is identified, COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. A&R uses iThenticate for similarity screening prior to peer review. Manuscripts exceeding a 20% similarity threshold are flagged for editorial review; those with substantial unattributed overlap or confirmed plagiarism are rejected in accordance with COPE guidelines. For details on the technical pre-check process, see A Roadmap to Publication 3.1.
3.3 Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should also cite publications that have influenced the nuatre of the reported work.
3.4 Authorship of Manuscripts
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Those who made significant contributions to the study should be listed as co-authors. In cases where others participated in certain, substantive aspects of the research, they should be named in the ‘Acknowledgements’ Section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission to the Journal for publication. Any changes to the authorship list post-submission require the consent of all study authors.
According to the COPE position statement on AI tools, manuscripts generated through the use of ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs), generative AI, or chatbots do not satisfy A&R's criteria for authorship, and AI tools cannot be listed as an author. Manuscripts must be written by persons who can account for and claim responsibility for the originality and integrity of the content.
A&R AI use policy for authors. Generative AI or AI-assisted tools (e.g., LLMs, image/code generators) must not be listed as authors. Any substantive use—including drafting or rewriting text, literature search, translation beyond copy-editing, data analysis, statistical modeling, code generation, figure/table/image creation or modification, graphical abstracts, or synthetic data—must be disclosed in the Methods section (or Acknowledgments if discipline norms prefer), following the format specified in Author Guidelines 2.2.10. Pure spelling, grammar, and punctuation checks that do not change content need not be disclosed. For image/map generation and statistical code, additional details as listed in Author Guidelines 2.2.10 are required. AI-generated or AI-altered research images, photographs, maps, or primary data visualizations are prohibited unless the AI use is itself the research method, in which case the model, version, parameters, training/validation data, and reproducibility steps must be described in the Methods and the figures labelled accordingly. Conceptual, graphical, or cover images produced with AI may be accepted only with prior editorial approval and explicit labelling.
The SCC Press subscribes to COPE's position statement regarding authorship and AI tools; see more information here.
3.5 Fundamental Errors in Published Works
Authors have scientific and ethical obligations to promptly notify the A&R Editorial Team in case of significant errors or inaccuracies in their published article. Moreover, they should cooperate with the Editorial Team to either retract the paper or publish an appropriate Corrigendum (for author-introduced errors) or Erratum (for publisher-introduced errors) after explaining how the error impacts the article. Errors arising from undisclosed or improper AI use (e.g., fabricated references, manipulated images, false data, unverified AI-drafted text) are treated as fundamental errors; where the error involves misconduct, the retraction procedure in 4.5 applies.
The appropriate course of action depends on the nature of the error and includes: (1) a formal note or correction or (2) full retraction. In both cases, there should be an explicit note on the affected parts of the article.
3.6 Citation Policy
A&R complies with I4OC standards for open citations. Authors should ensure that material from other sources (including their own published work) is appropriately cited and appropriate permissions are obtained where relevant.
Authors should not excessively self-cite, cite advertisements or advertorial material, or copy references from works they have not read.
Similarly, authors should not preferentially cite their own, their friends', peers', or institutions' publications.
Under COPE guidelines, we expect that "original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations." This condition also applies to an author's own work. COPE has produced a discussion document on citation manipulation with recommendations for best practice. References generated, reformatted, or curated with AI assistance must be verified against the original publications; fabricated or unverifiable AI-produced citations constitute a publication-ethics violation and may result in rejection or correction under 4.
4. Updating Published Papers
A&R is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. Because research evolves after publication, articles may be updated with supplementary data or corrections; CrossMark enables readers to verify whether cited content has been updated, corrected, or retracted.
We proactively correct discovered scientific errors or ethical issues in published papers and adhere to standardized, transparent criteria for all updates. By introducing the CrossMark logo, A&R commits to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of its published content; proactively alerting readers to any changes, updates, or corrections to the content over time. Clicking the CrossMark logo on an A&R document will reveal its current status (e.g., "current," "retracted," or "corrected") and may include additional publication-record details, such as links to errata, retractions, or updated versions.
A&R ensures all updates (corrections, retractions) are conducted transparently, with clear communication to authors, readers, and indexing databases, to uphold the credibility of scholarly publishing.
4.1 Terminology: Corrigendum vs. Erratum
A&R distinguishes between two types of post-publication correction in accordance with COPE guidelines:
- Corrigendum (plural Corrigenda): issued for an error introduced by the authors (e.g., an incorrect author listing, funding information, or acknowledgment). Responsibility for the error lies with the authors.
- Erratum (plural Errata): issued for an error introduced by the publisher during production or online publication (e.g., a typesetting, formatting, or figure-placement error). Responsibility for the error lies with the publisher.
Both are published as separate, permanently linked notices and are applied transparently regardless of who introduced the error.
4.2 Minor Errors
Minor errors (such as spelling, grammar, spacing errors) that do not affect readability or meaning do not qualify as updates, regardless of when or by whom the error was introduced.
4.3 Metadata Errors
Requests to correct metadata (such as title, abstract, or author name spelling) are considered only for factual, non-substantive errors that do not affect the scientific interpretation of the work. Approval is at the discretion of the A&R Editorial Office.
- Author name spelling corrections (e.g., fixing a typographical error, correcting initials) may be processed as metadata corrections, provided they do not alter the authorship list and are supported by valid identification.
- Non-scientific title or abstract corrections (e.g., fixing typos, formatting) may be approved as metadata updates.
- Changes to the authorship list (addition or removal of an author), author order, or addition/removal of entire affiliations are NOT permitted as metadata corrections. These require a formal Corrigendum (see 4.4).
4.4 Corrections (Corrigenda and Errata)
A&R issues corrections under either a Corrigendum (author-introduced error) or an Erratum (publisher-introduced error), as defined in 4.1. In the following situations, a request to correct errors can be processed, and the appropriate notice must be issued:
(1) Errors that may affect scientific interpretation (e.g., misleading sections, data or interpretation errors that do not alter the final conclusion).
(2) Scientifically relevant formatting changes (e.g., missing or unclear figures/tables).
(3) Author-related changes — Corrigendum applies: Addition or removal of an author; change of author order; addition or removal of an entire affiliation; addition or removal of a significant amount of text within the back matter (e.g., funding, author contributions, acknowledgements). Note: Correction of author name spelling errors that do not change the authorship list may be processed as a metadata correction under 4.3. Such Corrigendum changes are permitted only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., demonstrable omission of a contributor who meets authorship criteria) and require (i) written consent from all authors, (ii) a detailed justification, and (iii) final approval by the Editor-in-Chief.
(4) Publisher-related changes — Erratum applies: production or typesetting errors that affect the integrity or readability of the published version.
Once the update request is approved, the paper is updated and re-published on the A&R website, together with the publication of the corresponding Corrigendum or Erratum notice. This notice is a separate publication, linked to the updated paper and published in the latest issue of the journal, informing all readers of the significant changes and that a revised version is available. All relevant indexing databases are then notified so that their versions are also revised. Where the error being corrected originated from improper or undisclosed AI use, the notice (Corrigendum or Erratum) should identify the nature of the error and, where applicable, the relevant AI tool and use case.
4.5 Retractions
A&R is committed to maintaining the integrity of the academic record and therefore may retract a manuscript if necessary. A&R follows COPE recommendations on retraction.
A&R maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards academic misconduct, including serious ethical violations, data falsification, and extensive plagiarism, including fabrication or manipulation through generative AI (e.g., AI-generated fake data, images, or references, or failure to disclose substantive AI use where required). For publisher-introduced errors unrelated to misconduct, an Erratum rather than a retraction is issued.
If a Retraction is published, the original publication is amended with a “RETRACTED” watermark but will still be available on A&R’s website for future reference. However, retracted articles should not be cited and used for further research, as they cannot be relied upon. Retractions are published using the same authorship and affiliation as the paper being retracted, so that the notice and the original retracted paper can be properly found by readers within indexing databases. The Retraction notice will also be published in the current Issue of A&R. A partial retraction may be issued when only some results are erroneous.
A paper will only be completely removed from A&R’s website and relevant indexing databases in very exceptional circumstances, where leaving it online would constitute an illegal act or be likely to lead to significant harm.
5. Appeals & Complaints
5.1 Appeals
Closely adhering to COPE policies, A&R has a robust Appeals procedure that allows authors to challenge editorial decisions they perceive as unfair or incorrect.
Submitting an Appeal
In case authors disagree with the decision of the Journal Editor (a result of the peer-review process), they can submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should logically outline why the author(s) believe the editorial decision was unfair and/or unjustified.
Steps Following a Formal Appeal:
(1) Editorial Review: The appeal is reviewed by a designated editorial board member who was not involved in the initial decision-making process. This ensures impartiality and fairness in the review of the appeal.
(2) Evaluation: The designated board member evaluates the grounds of the appeal, considering whether the decision was consistent with the Journal's policies, ethical guidelines, and standards of peer review. They assess whether procedural errors, biases, or misunderstandings may have influenced the decision.
(3) Consultation: If the case requires further attention, the Appeal Officer may contact the reviewers to obtain their perspectives and invite additional comments regarding the manuscript and the initial decision.
(4) Decision: A decision will be made based on the input obtained to uphold or overturn the original decision. Disclosure of the decision and its rationale will be communicated to the authors.
(5) Documentation: Throughout the process, a documentation record will be kept for transparency of the appeal process and accountability for the final decision.
(6) Finality: This decision is final and binding for all parties. COPE may mediate cases where authors remain dissatisfied, at COPE's discretion.
5.2 Complaints
Similarly, authors may submit formal complaints against any individual in connection with the Journal, including authors, reviewers, the advisory and/or editorial board, and the Journal's editorial office. Such complaints may pertain to ethical issues, problems with the publication process or other administrative operations, or editorial decisions (cf. also Appeals, above).
In case of a Complaint, the journal’s editorial office will promptly acknowledge receipt and open a formal case disclosing the steps of the procedure. In particular:
Step 1: Investigation | A formal investigation into the complaint will take place under the general guidance of an Editor/Investigator, who will review the matter impartially and objectively.
Step 2: Merit | Based on COPE guidelines, the Investigator will assess the merit of the complaint, taking into account the severity of the alleged misconduct, breach of publication ethics, and impact on the integrity of academic research.
Step 3: Decision | Following the investigation, the Investigator will judge the case, focusing mainly on upholding publication ethics. They may request certain actions such as: issuing corrections or retractions, revising editorial decisions, providing clarifications, or implementing changes to policies or procedures. The outcome of the investigation will be clearly communicated to all involved parties, along with details on the decision’s rationale and further actions. The complainant may appeal the decision by presenting a compelling case.
A paper trail of each complaint will be available for interested parties to protect the transparency of the proceedings.
A&R is dedicated to fostering trust, integrity, and excellence in agricultural and rural research through rigorous ethical oversight. For further inquiries, contact: ruizhang@sccpress.com.
