Agricultural & Rural Studies (A&R)​ employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to uphold the highest standards of academic quality. The journal's editorial workflow, supported by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), ensures a systematic progression from submission to publication.

All articles accepted for publication will undergo evaluation by a minimum of two independent external reviewers. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Committed to both quality and efficiency, A&R aims to provide an initial decision within three months of submission and publishes four issues per year.

1. Register

Authors intending to submit their work for peer review in A&R are required to complete registration on our platform.

Registered users gain access to a suite of academic support features: real-time updates on manuscript status, automated notifications for new publications, and opportunities to engage with an expanding interdisciplinary community focused on agricultural development, rural revitalization, and farming and farmer-related policies. Central to A&R's mission is the advancement of the Scholar Community Center (SCC) as a catalyst for transformative change in these domains.

At the SCC, we uphold the highest standards of privacy protection. A&R is dedicated to safeguarding the confidentiality of all authors, readers, reviewers, and editors; personal information will be utilized exclusively for editorial processes.

To maximize your engagement with our academic ecosystem, we strongly encourage immediate registration. Rest assured, the process is designed to be efficient and streamlined, minimizing administrative burden while ensuring seamless integration into our scholarly network.

Please consider registering now!

2. Submit

After logging into the A&R website (https://sccpress.com/ars), the corresponding author or submitting author may proceed by following the step-by-step instructions to upload the manuscript, the title page and the cover letter. Please note that a manuscript must not be under consideration by another journal or submitted to multiple journals simultaneously during its evaluation period with A&R. This ensures compliance with ethical publishing standards and avoids conflicts in the peer-review process.

3. Pre-check

The initial screening stage consists of two main steps: a technical pre-check performed by the Editorial Assistant and an editorial pre-check performed by the Associate Editor.

3.1 Pre-check by Editorial Assistant

The editorial assistant checks that the manuscript adheres to A&R's Author Guidelines requirements. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point. In detail, the editorial assistant:

• Conducts an initial screening of the manuscript and determines the article type (Perspective, Review, Original Research, or Commentary).
• Checks the abstract (max. 250 words), keywords (4–6) and article word limits according to the different types of articles.
• Checks the reference style. Articles submitted to A&R should follow the APA citation and bibliography format.
• Ensures anonymity. As A&R conducts a double-blind peer review, submissions should be free of personal data (i.e., name, affiliation) or other indications of identity (e.g., footnotes, acknowledgements, self-citations). The submitted manuscript in .doc(x) format should uphold anonymity.
• Checks title page and cover letter.
• Conducts due diligence for academic integrity. Following A&R's policy, the manuscript is checked for plagiarism using iThentiate. A similarity score exceeding 20% triggers an internal editorial review to assess the nature of the overlap (e.g., excessive self-citation, unformatted references, or legitimate quotations). Manuscripts with substantial unattributed overlap or confirmed plagiarism are rejected in accordance with COPE guidelines (see Publication Ethics 3.2).

3.2 Pre-check by Associate Editor

The Associate Editor assesses the manuscript, considering its scope, originality and merits. The Associate Editor may reject the manuscript at this stage.

Desk rejection, where editors reject manuscripts without peer review, typically occurs under these circumstances: scope mismatch, methodological flaws, lack of novelty, poor structural/technical quality or ethical concerns. Desk rejection is A&R's first-line filter to prioritize resources for review-worthy work.

Special care is taken to ensure that the initial appraisal does not last longer than necessary.

4. Peer Review (Double-Blind)

A&R employs a double-blind peer-review process, wherein the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review. This mechanism safeguards impartiality by mitigating potential biases related to authors' seniority, gender, institutional affiliation, geographic origin, or other personal characteristics, thereby ensuring a fair and objective evaluation focused solely on academic merit.

4.1 Reviewer Selection and Screening Criteria

Upon the decision to proceed with peer review, the corresponding author will be notified. The handling editor (Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor) will assign the manuscript to a minimum of two independent, external reviewers. While reviewers are primarily selected from our database of external experts, an Editorial Board member may occasionally be invited in a strictly independent capacity, always in conjunction with at least two fully external reviewers.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria:

• Scope Conformity: Does the manuscript align with A&R's stated aims, scope, and strategic priorities?
• Scientific Novelty: Does the manuscript say something new and interesting? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one?
• Title Specificity: Is the title concise, accurate, and inclusive of key terminology? Does it clearly articulate the study's significance and conceptual rigor?
• Abstract Precision: Does the abstract comprehensively yet succinctly reflect all critical components of the manuscript?
• Introduction Rigor: Are research objectives and hypotheses explicitly stated? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is adequate reference made to other work in the field?
• Methodological Transparency: Are data collection protocols, experimental designs, and analytical methods adequately described to ensure reproducibility? Are novel methodologies explained with sufficient technical detail? Is equipment or material sourcing and sampling strategy adequately justified? Are measurement precision and data recording protocols explicitly defined?
• Analytical Rigor: Does the manuscript demonstrate soundness in the way it has been researched and/or argued?
• Results Presentation: Are findings organized logically with appropriate statistical support and visualization?
• Conclusion Validity: Do conclusions derive directly from the data, avoiding overinterpretation?
• Research Applications: Does the manuscript suggest areas for further research, and are practical implications for practitioners clearly drawn out?
• Visual Communication: Are figures and tables essential, original, and formatted consistently with A&R guidelines?
• Clarity and Readability: Do language issues impede comprehension of the methodological or conceptual arguments?

Although the primary responsibility for ethical oversight rests with A&R, reviewers play a critical role in identifying potential misconduct through rigorous, domain-specific evaluation. While it is not your duty to conduct a formal ethics audit of submitted manuscripts, your expertise uniquely equips you to detect issues such as conflicts of interest, data fraud, plagiarism, or possible defamation. Should you have reason to suspect any ethical misconduct—intentional or inadvertent—please inform the A&R editorial office as soon as possible.

Reviewer Confirmation: Upon accepting a review invitation, reviewers are required to confirm that they have not uploaded manuscript content to any generative AI tool to evaluate or draft the substance of their report, in accordance with Publication Ethics 2.3. Limited language polishing of the reviewer's own comments is permitted only under the conditions specified in Publication Ethics 2.3 (no manuscript content uploaded, non-retention/local tools used, disclosed to the editorial office).

4.2 Review Report and Decision Recommendation

Reviewers should carefully read the manuscript and provide detailed and constructive feedback. The Associate Editor then synthesizes these reports, evaluates the manuscript's scientific validity, and provides a well-reasoned recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on this recommendation.

The standard editorial decisions are:

• Accept
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Reject

4.3 Review Support and Quality Assurance

The handling editor monitors the review progress. The Editorial Office supports this process by sending reminders to reviewers, verifying the completeness of review reports, and forwarding decisions to authors.

During the review process, the handling editor may require authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if necessary for the evaluation of the manuscript. These materials should be kept confidential and must not be used for any other purposes.

In the case that authors have serious and reasonable objections to the reviews, a designated editorial board member who was not involved in the initial decision-making process will assess the contested review(s) for adherence to principles of scholarly rigor and impartiality. Should this assessment yield substantiated concerns regarding the review's impartiality or methodological soundness, the Editor-in-Chief will initiate an additional independent review process by assigning one or more new reviewers.

If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an extra expert opinion before making a decision. The manuscript must receive at least two positive reports to proceed to the next stage.

Note to Reviewers: A&R operates a Reviewer Points (RP) System to recognize peer-review contributions. Full terms—including how to earn points, validity periods, usage rules, and anti-fraud controls—are available in Section 10 of this document.

5. Editor-in-Chief Decision

The final decision on a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and will be one of the following:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without revisions. The corresponding author will receive a certificate of acceptance.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is likely to be accepted after minor revisions are addressed to the satisfaction of the editors.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes and will undergo a further round of peer review.
• Reject: The manuscript is not accepted for publication.

If a revision is invited, authors must submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, accompanied by a point-by-point response letter detailing how all comments from the reviewers and editors have been addressed. Failure to meet the deadline will result in the manuscript's rejection.

5.1 Minor Revisions

Minor revisions typically involve small adjustments to the manuscript, such as:

• Meeting author guidelines (e.g., slight word count reduction)
• Formatting corrections (e.g., table/figure labeling)
• Strengthening literature review coverage
• Brief elaboration on research findings

5.2 Major Revisions

Major revisions require substantial changes that may take weeks or months to complete. Common requests include:

• Addressing methodological flaws
• Collecting additional data
• Enhanced analytical rigor
• Refining the research question to enhance originality

6. Copy Editing and English Editing

6.1 Copy Editing

Copy editing is a meticulous process focused on refining the technical and structural elements of a manuscript. It involves correcting spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax errors, as well as addressing inconsistencies in tone, style, and phrasing. Beyond error correction, copy editors optimize readability by streamlining awkward or redundant expressions, ensuring alignment with disciplinary terminology, and organizing complex arguments into logical, hierarchical structures. This stage also prepares the text for typesetting by standardizing formatting (e.g., headings, citations) to meet the journal's publication standards. Crucially, copy editing preserves the author's original voice and intent while elevating the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and intellectual rigor. Edits are limited to resolving ambiguities or factual inaccuracies; external stylistic preferences are not imposed.

6.2 English Editing

English editing focuses on enhancing the linguistic quality and academic precision of the manuscript, particularly for non-native English speakers or works requiring refinement to meet international publication standards. This stage goes beyond basic grammar correction to improve fluency, clarity, and professionalism in academic expression. English editors may rephrase unclear sentences, strengthen arguments with more precise vocabulary, and ensure consistency in tone (e.g., formal, objective) appropriate for scholarly discourse. They also verify that technical terms align with disciplinary norms and that the manuscript adheres to the journal's stylistic guidelines (e.g., passive vs. active voice, use of abbreviations). The goal is to elevate the manuscript's readability and credibility, ensuring it communicates research effectively to a global academic audience.

A&R's policy on AI usage is defined in Author Guidelines 2.2.10. Authors must adhere to those guidelines regarding disclosure, scope, and prohibitions. In summary: substantive use of generative AI (drafting, rewriting, literature search, data analysis, image generation, etc.) must be disclosed in the Methods or Acknowledgments section; pure language checks not altering content do not require disclosure. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and all AI use must comply with COPE principles.

7. Final Proofs

Final proofs are the last stage in the scholarly publication workflow, wherein authors meticulously scrutinize their manuscript prior to publication. The main purposes of this process include:

• Error Detection and Rectification: Authors systematically identify and correct typographical, grammatical, or formatting anomalies inadvertently introduced during the typesetting process. This includes verification of textual consistency, numerical accuracy, and adherence to journal-specific style guidelines.
• Final Modifications: This provides authors with a final opportunity to make changes or corrections to their work.
• Responding to Editor Queries: Authors must comprehensively respond to specific queries or critiques articulated by editorial personnel, ensuring all concerns regarding methodological transparency, analytical robustness, or contextual relevance are resolved.
• Quality Assurance: This step ensures that the paper meets the required standards for publication, including the accuracy of references and funding acknowledgments.

Overall, author proofreading is crucial for maintaining the quality and integrity of academic publications. Consequently, this process reflects the collaborative relationship between authors and publishers in advancing verifiable knowledge dissemination.

8. Online Publication

Upon successful completion of all prior stages in the publication workflow and receipt of formal author approval, the manuscript will be released on the A&R platform under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/license/by/4.0/). Each article is assigned a unique DOI (e.g., https://doi.org/10.59978/ar···) upon publication. Following dissemination, the Editorial Office retains responsibility for ongoing oversight, including the tracking of post-publication updates and the implementation of critical revisions necessitated by reader feedback, erratum reporting, or evolving scholarly consensus. Such adjustments, if required, will be executed in compliance with the journal's editorial guidelines to ensure the integrity and currency of the published record.

9. Post-Publication: Maximizing Your Research Impact

Your article's publication in A&R is not an endpoint, but the beginning of its journey toward broader recognition and real-world influence. We view impact as a shared endeavor: while your active role in dissemination is essential, our editorial office is your committed partner in ensuring your work reaches academic, public, and policy audiences effectively.

9.1 Confirm Publication & Access

Verify the final version and its metadata (title, authors, DOI) on the journal platform to ensure accurate indexing. As a fully open-access journal, A&R makes your work immediately free to read worldwide, supporting wide discoverability and citation potential.

9.2 Share Your Work Strategically (Author-Led)

Expand reach through your own channels:

• Share the DOI link on academic and social platforms (ResearchGate, LinkedIn, X, etc.)
• Deposit the article in your institutional repository and highlight it internally.
• Notify co-authors, colleagues, and relevant networks in your field.

9.3 Journal-Supported Outreach (Our Collaborative Role)

For selected articles—especially those with high relevance or innovation—our editorial team initiates additional promotion:

• Media Outreach: We develop press releases and pitch stories to science, agricultural, and policy media outlets.
• Policy Translation: We collaborate with authors to prepare non-technical policy briefs for government, NGO, and industry stakeholders.
• Academic & Public Engagement: We feature articles in our social media, newsletters, and conferences, and may invite authors to present in webinars or public events.

9.4 Engage with Feedback & Track Impact

• Monitor and professionally respond to post-publication comments on journal or scholarly forums.
• Use tools like Google Scholar Alerts to follow citations; you may also request article-level metrics (downloads, Altmetric attention score) from our editorial office.

9.5 Maintain Integrity in Communication

In all post-publication outreach—whether through media, presentations, or online summaries—ensure that findings are represented accurately, clearly, and without overstatement.

9.6 Build on Your Publication

Use your published work as a foundation for further scholarship: consider follow-up studies, review articles, or public-facing summaries. We welcome updates on new developments arising from your A&R publication.

By combining your dissemination efforts with our structured outreach support, we can together extend the visibility, application, and legacy of your research—advancing both scholarly discourse and tangible progress in agricultural sustainability, rural revitalization, and farmer well-being.

10. Reviewer Recognition & Voucher Program

Complete policy governing the A&R Reviewer Points (RP) System, discount vouchers, and anti-fraud controls. For questions, contact the A&R Editorial Office.

10.1 Overview

Agricultural & Rural Studies (A&R) operates a Reviewer Points (RP) System to recognize the scholarly contribution of peer reviewers. Each completed and qualifying review earns 50 Reviewer Points (RP), which are equivalent to a 2% discount on the Article Processing Charge (APC) for a future submission. Points are automatically recorded in the reviewer's profile and can be converted into discount vouchers.

10.2 Points Earning & Eligibility

Per-Review Reward

• Each review report submitted on time and meeting A&R's quality standards (assessed by the handling Editor) entitles the reviewer to 50 RP.
• 50 RP = one (1) 2% APC Discount Voucher (auto-generated upon points accrual).

Quality Threshold

• Reviews deemed perfunctory, overly brief, methodologically inadequate, or generated by undisclosed AI tools may not qualify. The handling Editor reserves the right to withhold RP for a specific review.

Outstanding Reviewer Award

• In addition to per-review points, A&R may award bonus points (e.g., 250 RP, equivalent to 10% APC discount) to reviewers recognized for exceptional service each year.

Ethics Compliance

• Only reviewers in good standing (no breaches of confidentiality, no undisclosed conflicts of interest) are eligible to earn and redeem points.

10.3 Discount Value & Conversion

• Conversion Rate: 50 RP = 2% APC discount voucher.
• Stackability: Vouchers are additive—multiple vouchers (each representing 50 RP) may be combined to cover a larger portion of the APC. There is no cap on the total discount that can be accumulated (i.e., a reviewer may theoretically accumulate up to 100% waiver through repeated reviews).
• Combination: Vouchers may be combined with other reviewer vouchers as well as with affiliated society discounts or other promotional offers, unless explicitly excluded by the specific promotion.
• Discount Basis: The discount is calculated based on the standard APC in effect at the time of submission (currently $1,500 effective 2027; any future adjustments will apply proportionally).

10.4 Validity & Expiration

Pilot Phase Special Validity (Extended)

• For all vouchers issued during the Pilot Phase (through December 31, 2027), the validity period is uniformly extended to December 31, 2029, regardless of the date of issue.
• This means any points earned and vouchers generated on or before December 31, 2027 will remain valid for redemption until the end of 2029.

Standard Validity (Post-Pilot)

• For vouchers issued on or after January 1, 2028 (Full Launch), the standard validity period is 24 months from the date of issue, unless otherwise specified.

General Expiration Rules

• Unused vouchers past their expiration date (as defined above) will be forfeited.
• A&R reserves the right to revoke unused vouchers in cases of misuse (e.g., fraudulent review reports, peer review manipulation) or misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication by the voucher holder).

10.5 Usage Rules

• Email Binding: Vouchers are linked to the reviewer's registered email address in the A&R submission system.
• Timing Restriction: Vouchers must be applied before a manuscript is accepted. Once a manuscript status changes to "Accepted," vouchers can no longer be redeemed for that submission.
• Non-Transferable: Vouchers cannot be transferred to another person or used under a different email address. The voucher holder must be an author (preferably the corresponding author) on the submission for which the voucher is applied.
• Application Process: To redeem, the author must enter the voucher code(s) in the submission system at the time of submission or notify the editorial office before acceptance. The voucher code will be verified against the reviewer's email record and RP balance.

10.6 Implementation Timeline

Phase	Period	Key Features
Pilot Phase	Through Dec 31, 2027	RP system active; vouchers issued carry extended validity to Dec 31, 2029
Full Launch	Jan 1, 2028 – onwards	Standard 24-month validity applies; system fully integrated with APC billing

Pilot Phase Detail: Vouchers issued to eligible reviewers during the pilot phase (through December 31, 2027) will be clearly marked with the extended expiration date of December 31, 2029, aligning with A&R's commitment to encouraging early adoption of the program.

10.7 Anti-Fraud & Security (Prevention of Counterfeit / Abuse)

To safeguard the integrity of the Reviewer Points & Voucher Program, A&R implements the following controls:

10.7.1 Points Issuance Controls

• System-only issuance: Points are generated automatically by the submission system only after a review report is submitted on time and approved as qualifying by the handling editor.
• Hard-coded trigger conditions: Points are issued only when all conditions are met—invitation accepted; submitted within deadline; report non-empty; not flagged as copied; editor quality check passed; no confidentiality/COI breach.
• Points bound to review assignment: Each points entry records the reviewer email, manuscript ID, points amount (50 RP), issue timestamp, and validity period, allowing full traceability.

10.7.2 Voucher Code Controls

• Unique code with check digit: Voucher codes follow the format A&R-RV-YYYY-<16 random chars>-<check digit>, generated from email + assignment ID + timestamp.
• System-delivered only: Issuance notices are sent only to the reviewer's registered email. No universal public codes are published on social media or public platforms.
• State machine management: Vouchers follow a status flow of issued → redeemed → expired → revoked.

10.7.3 Redemption Controls

• Three-way system match: Redemption requires (i) the code exists, (ii) the bound email matches the submitter/corresponding author email, and (iii) a verifiable qualifying review record exists.
• Pre-acceptance only: Codes cannot be submitted after status = accepted.
• No duplicate redemption: Each voucher is redeemed only once.
• Author identity check: The redeemer must be an author on the submission; if the reviewer email does not match any author email, the editor must verify same-person identity (ORCID plus historical email).

10.7.4 Controls against Fake Reviews (Review Farming)

• Quality gate, not count-only: Reports consisting only of "acceptable/no comments," copied abstracts, mutual praise, or undisclosed AI-generated content are rejected and no points are issued.
• Mutual-review loop monitoring: The system analyzes reviewer–author networks to detect closed circles; suspected collusion freezes all related points and vouchers.
• Self-review / related-party blocking: Invitations to reviewers with COI are intercepted; no points are issued for such reviews.
• Low-frequency anomaly alerting: Unusually high review counts in short periods trigger manual review; points are frozen during investigation.

10.7.5 Transfer / Impersonation Prevention

• Email-bound and non-rebindable: Points and vouchers are non-transferable. If a reviewer changes affiliation, they must prove identity via ORCID; the editor reissues a new voucher and invalidates the old code.
• No secondary trading: Sale, gift, or exchange of vouchers on third-party platforms is void.
• Corresponding-author pooling rule: Multiple personal vouchers may be pooled by a single corresponding author, but each must originate from that individual's qualifying reviews.

10.7.6 Enforcement & Audit

• Revocation grounds: A&R may withhold, freeze, or revoke points/vouchers where a review is fabricated, low-quality, ghostwritten, or in breach of rules.
• Audit logs: All points issuance, conversion, redemption, and revocation are fully logged. Finance reconciles total APC discounts against qualifying-review-count × 50 RP monthly.
• Sampling audit: Each quarter, the editorial office samples 5%–10% of redeemed vouchers and reviews the underlying report; low-quality reviews result in suspension of future points issuance.

10.7.7 Model Policy Clause

Reviewer points (50 RP per qualifying review) are issued automatically by the A&R submission system only after a review report is submitted on time and approved as qualifying. Points are converted to 2% APC discount vouchers, uniquely coded, linked to the reviewer's registered email, and tied to the specific review assignment. Vouchers issued during the pilot phase (through December 31, 2027) are valid until December 31, 2029; vouchers issued from January 1, 2028 onward are valid for 24 months. Vouchers must be redeemed before acceptance and are non-transferable. A&R may withhold, freeze, or revoke points/vouchers where a review is fabricated, low-quality, or in breach of confidentiality/COI rules.