Políticas editoriales

Objective

To establish clear, transparent and enforceable editorial policies that govern the independence, duties and decision-making of AgroBioTech’s editorial office and editorial board; to protect the integrity, fairness and quality of the journal’s editorial processes; and to provide an accessible framework for authors, editors, board members, institutions and the public.

Scope

These policies apply to all editorial staff and volunteer editors acting for AgroBioTech, to all members of the Editorial Board, and to anyone participating in editorial decision-making for material submitted to AgroBioTech. These policies cover: editorial independence and responsibility; editorial decision-making; the roles and responsibilities of the Editor‑in‑Chief, Associate Editors and the Editorial Board; confidentiality; fairness and impartiality; conflict of interest management; corrections, retractions and expressions of concern; editorial quality assurance; appeals and complaints; compliance with COPE principles; proportional measures; recordkeeping; and periodic review.

Definitions

- Author: Any person or group submitting a manuscript or other material for consideration by AgroBioTech.

Editorial Office: Staff employed or contracted by AgroBioTech who support editorial workflows and maintain the journal platform (OJS).

Editor‑in‑Chief (EiC): The senior editor with ultimate responsibility for editorial policies and publication decisions.

Associate Editor: An editor appointed to manage manuscripts in a specific subject area or handling queue.

Editorial Board: Group of appointed experts who advise the EiC and may participate in manuscript evaluation and policy development.

Conflict of Interest (COI): Any financial, personal, professional or other interest that could influence (or be perceived to influence) editorial judgment.

Expression of Concern: A formal notice issued by the journal to alert readers to potentially serious problems in a published work while an investigation is ongoing.

Retraction: Withdrawal of a published paper from the literature accompanied by a notice explaining the reasons.

Correction (Erratum/Correction Notice): A formal correction of errors that do not invalidate the central findings of a published work.

Proportional measures: Actions taken by the editorial office that are commensurate with the severity and nature of the concern (e.g., correction, expression of concern, retraction, embargo, banning).

General Principles

- Editorial independence: Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, political or personal influence. The EiC and editorial team have sole authority to accept or reject manuscripts based on scholarly merit, ethical compliance and relevance to the journal.

Transparency: Editorial policies, decision criteria and appeals procedures shall be publicly accessible on the journal’s website (OJS) and updated when necessary.

Accountability: The editorial office and Editorial Board are accountable for timely, fair and documented decisions. Records of decisions and communications must be retained as described below.

Proportionality: Measures to address concerns shall be proportionate to the nature and severity of the issue and follow the procedures set out in this policy.

Compliance: AgroBioTech will operate in alignment with internationally recognized guidelines on publication ethics and editorial practice, including COPE principles. (See “Compliance with COPE Principles” below.)

1. Editorial Independence

1.1 Policy statement

The EiC shall have final responsibility for editorial decisions, free from interference by the publisher, sponsors, institutional owners, advertisers or any third parties.

Commercial and financial departments of the publisher must not influence editorial decision-making or content. 1.2 Safeguards

The EiC shall report in writing to the publisher on editorial independence provisions and shall have documented authority in the journal’s governance documents.

Any attempted interference must be reported immediately in writing to the EiC and to the publisher’s designated compliance officer; the report will be recorded and retained.

2. Editorial Responsibility

2.1 Standards

The editorial office is responsible for ensuring published content meets standards of scientific rigour, ethical conduct and relevance to AgroBioTech’s scope. 2.2 Delegation and escalation

The EiC may delegate tasks to Associate Editors and the Editorial Board but retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring policies are followed. Significant policy deviations, complex ethical cases, or conflicts that cannot be resolved at the EiC level must be escalated to the publisher’s ethics committee or an independent advisory board.

3. Editorial Decision‑Making

3.1 Decision criteria

Decisions will be based on:

Originality and scientific validity as appropriate for the article type and disciplinary standards.

Ethical compliance (e.g., approvals, informed consent where required) — see relevant separate policies.

Relevance and contribution to the journal’s scope. 3.2 Decision process (applicable to editorial actions; peer review procedures are covered in a separate policy)

Assign handling editor (EiC or Associate Editor).

Initial editorial assessment for scope and compliance with submission requirements.

Handling editor documents rationale for decision and communicates outcome to authors using OJS decision letters. 3.3 Timelines

Initial editorial triage: target within 2 weeks of submission.

Final editorial decision: target communicated to authors upon completion of editorial evaluation or review cycles; the EiC shall publish expected timelines on the journal website. 3.4 Documentation

All editorial decisions must be documented in OJS, including reasons for rejection, acceptance, or other editorial actions, and stored according to recordkeeping rules below.

4. Responsibilities of the Editor‑in‑Chief

4.1 Leadership and policy

Maintain and enforce these Editorial Policies and ensure they are publicly available and implemented.

Appoint, supervise and remove Associate Editors and Editorial Board members according to transparent criteria.

4.2 Editorial decisions

Make final editorial decisions or ensure the integrity of delegated decisions.

Resolve conflicts between editors, authors and reviewers when they relate to editorial judgment or process.

4.3 Conflict management and recusal

Disclose personal or institutional conflicts and recuse themselves from decisions where a conflict exists; recusal must be recorded. 4.4 Oversight of integrity cases

Initiate and manage investigations into potential ethical breaches relating to editorial responsibility, including liaising with institutions, publishers and, where appropriate, COPE or other bodies. 4.5 Reporting and transparency

Report to the publisher on editorial independence, misconduct cases and policy changes as required.

5. Responsibilities of Associate Editors

5.1 Subject handling

Manage manuscripts assigned within their area of expertise, ensure timely processing and apply the journal’s decision criteria.

5.2 Ethical obligations

Disclose any conflicts of interest related to manuscripts and recuse themselves where appropriate.

5.3 Communication

Provide clear, reasoned editorial recommendations and maintain professional communication with authors and the editorial office.

5.4 Recordkeeping

Record all actions and rationales in OJS; ensure files and correspondence relevant to decisions are uploaded to the journal’s secure record system.

6. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

6.1 Advisory role

Provide subject‑matter advice, assist in setting journal policy, and recommend reviewers or new editors as requested (subject to conflict checks).

6.2 Governance and integrity

Advise on disputes or policy interpretation when requested by the EiC.

6.3 Conduct

Serve according to a code of conduct that requires disclosure of conflicts, professional conduct, and contributions to editorial quality. 6.4 Term and performance

Board membership terms, appointment criteria and expectations (including minimum contribution levels) will be published; the EiC may rotate or remove members for non‑participation or breach of policy.

7. Confidentiality

7.1 General rule

All documents and communications relating to editorial decisions, investigations and submissions are confidential, shared only with those actively involved in handling the manuscript, relevant institutional representatives, or legal authorities as required.

7.2 Access and storage

Access to submission files and investigation records is limited to authorized editorial staff and editors; records are stored securely in OJS or institutional repositories with role‑based access controls.

7.3 Breaches

Any confidentiality breach must be reported to the EiC immediately. The EiC will investigate and apply proportional measures; serious or systemic breaches may result in removal from editorial duties and further sanctions.

7.4 Public disclosure

The journal may disclose limited information publicly (e.g., corrections, expressions of concern, retraction notices) consistent with transparency and legal obligations; disclosures shall avoid unnecessary personal data.

8. Fairness and Impartiality

8.1 Non‑discrimination

Editorial decisions will be made without regard to the author’s race, gender, nationality, religion, political affiliation or institution.

8.2 Objective

criteria

Decisions shall be based on the scholarly merits of submissions and compliance with journal standards; the EiC will require editors to document objective reasons for decisions.

8.3 Special considerations

The journal will take reasonable steps to ensure equitable treatment of submissions from low‑resource settings, early‑career researchers and interdisciplinary authors, applying the same standards while providing constructive editorial guidance where possible.

9. Conflict of Interest Management

9.1 Disclosure obligations

All editors (EiC, Associate Editors, Editorial Board) must disclose annually and when a conflict arises:

Financial interests (grants, consultancy, patents, stock ownership) relevant to the journal’s fields.

Institutional affiliations that might influence decisions.

Personal relationships with authors or reviewers.

9.2 Handling conflicts

If a conflict exists for a handling editor, the editor must recuse and the submission will be reassigned. The recusal and reassignment must be recorded in OJS.

9.3 Disclosure by authors and reviewers

The journal requires authors and reviewers to disclose relevant competing interests under separate policies; editors ensure disclosures are considered in decision-making.

9.4 Recordkeeping and public disclosure

Material conflicts affecting published content will be disclosed in the published article (as per the journal’s conflict of interest disclosure procedures). Aggregate information on editorial conflicts and how they are managed will be available on the journal website.

9.5 Sanctions for non‑disclosure

Failure by editors to disclose or recusals to be observed may result in removal from editorial duties, public notice and reporting to the editor’s institution depending on severity.

10. Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

10.1 Principles

Corrections and retractions are measures to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. They must be timely, transparent and linked to the original article.

10.2 Criteria

Corrections: factual errors that do not invalidate the main findings.

Expressions of Concern: issued when serious allegations require investigation and resolution but the investigation is not complete or the outcome is disputed.

Retractions: issued when findings are unreliable due to misconduct (fabrication, falsification), honest error that invalidates conclusions, redundant publication, or ethical breaches that undermine the validity of the work.

10.3 Procedure for handling concerns (stepwise)

1. Receipt: Any concern (from readers, authors, institutions, editors) should be sent to the EiC or the journal’s designated ethics contact via the OJS contact form or email.

2. Triage: Within 7 working days the EiC will acknowledge receipt and perform an initial assessment to determine whether immediate action is needed (e.g., expression of concern).

3. Preliminary inquiry: The EiC collects relevant materials (submission history, peer review records, data availability statements) and consults relevant editors.

4. Notification: If the issue appears substantive, the EiC will notify the corresponding author and, where appropriate, the author’s institution, providing details and requesting a response within a defined timeframe (typically 14–28 days).

5. Investigation: Depending on the nature of the allegation, the EiC may request the author’s institution to investigate or may lead an internal investigation, documenting evidence and findings.

6. Decision: Based on findings, the EiC, in consultation with the publisher where required, will determine whether to publish a correction, expression of concern or retraction.

7. Notice publication: Any correction, expression of concern or retraction will be published as a separate, citable notice, linked to the original article, and clearly labeled; the notice will explain the reason for the action.

8. Indexing and metadata: The editorial office will ensure that metadata and indexing services are updated to reflect the change (OJS and DOI metadata).

10.4 Timelines

Acknowledgement of an allegation: within 7 working days.

Initial response requested from authors: within 14–28 days.

Investigation completion: target within 3 months for straightforward cases; complex investigations may take longer and will be communicated to parties with periodic updates.

10.5 Records and confidentiality

All investigation records are retained in accordance with the journal’s recordkeeping policy and will be shared with institutions or relevant authorities as required by legal or regulatory obligations.

10.6 Appeals

Authors or complainants may appeal the decision following the journal’s Appeals and Complaints process.

11. Editorial Quality Assurance

11.1 Scope

- Quality assurance covers editorial workflows, adherence to reporting standards (as relevant to article type), data and materials transparency (as required by separate policies), and accuracy of the published record.

11.2 Processes

The editorial office will maintain checklists for submission completeness and reporting standards appropriate to article types.

Editors shall verify that ethics approvals, consent statements and data availability statements are present when required.

11.3 Training and standards

The journal will provide onboarding and continuing training for editors and staff on editorial best practices, COI management and handling of ethical cases.

11.4 Audit and monitoring

The publisher and EiC will conduct periodic audits of editorial decisions and policy compliance; findings and remedial actions will be recorded.

12. Appeals and Complaints

12.1 Right to appeal

Authors have the right to appeal final editorial decisions (except where decisions arise from factual findings of misconduct that preclude reconsideration). Grounds for appeal should be limited to procedural error, new evidence, or demonstrable bias.

12.2 Appeals procedure

Stage 1 (Informal): Authors submit an appeal within 30 days of the decision, stating grounds and supporting evidence. The handling editor or EiC will respond within 14 days.

Stage 2 (Formal review): If unresolved, the author may request a formal review to be conducted by a member of the Editorial Board not previously involved, or by an independent advisory panel. The panel will be appointed within 14 days and will complete review within 30–60 days.

Stage 3 (Final): The EiC will issue a final decision based on the review. This decision is final within the journal’s governance structure; authors may seek redress with the publisher if procedural irregularities remain.

12.3 Complaints about editorial conduct

Complaints regarding editorial staff or board member behavior should be sent to the EiC or the publisher’s complaint channel. The publisher will manage complaints involving the EiC or where a conflict of interest prevents impartial handling.

12.4 Transparency and records

Appeals and complaint outcomes and any consequent changes to editorial decisions will be documented and retained.

13. Compliance with COPE Principles

13.1 Commitment

AgroBioTech affirms its commitment to the core principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal will follow COPE flowcharts and guidance when handling cases of suspected misconduct where applicable.

13.2 Implementation

The EiC and editorial staff will consult COPE guidance for complex ethical cases and, when appropriate, will request COPE advice or follow COPE-recommended procedures.

13.3 Limitations

- Where COPE guidance does not address a particular operational detail, the journal’s procedures (set out here) apply; those procedures were developed to align with international best practice but are original to AgroBioTech when the local library did not supply a specific procedural template.

14. Measures Proportional to the Issue

14.1 Examples of proportional measures

Minor procedural lapse: private warning and retraining.

Non‑substantive factual errors in published work: publish a correction.

Substantial error that invalidates key conclusions: publish a retraction or corrected version with explanation.

Undisclosed competing interests affecting interpretation: publish a correction and disclosure; consider further sanctions for deliberate nondisclosure.

Misconduct affecting integrity (fabrication/falsification): retraction and notification of the author’s institution and funding bodies.

Breach of confidentiality by an editor or reviewer: removal from duties, possible reporting to institution.

Repeat or egregious violations: longer bans on submissions, public notice and reporting to relevant authorities.

14.2 Process for sanctions

Sanctions will be applied following an investigation, documented rationale, opportunity for the affected party to respond, and an appeal process.

15. Recordkeeping and Retention

15.1 Records to be retained

Submission histories, all editorial correspondence, decision letters, COI disclosures, investigation reports, and appeals documentation.

15.2 Retention period

Manuscript and decision records: retained for a minimum of 7 years. Investigation and ethics case files: retained for a minimum of 10 years unless longer retention is required by legal or institutional obligations.

15.3 Security

Records shall be stored securely with role‑based access controls in OJS and in secure institutional repositories; backups shall be maintained in accordance with publisher IT policies.

15.4 Access and disclosure

Records will be made available to institutions, funders or regulatory bodies where necessary for investigations and consistent with privacy laws.

16. Policy Review, Versioning and Publication

16.1 Review cycle

These Editorial Policies will be reviewed at least annually by the EiC in consultation with the Editorial Board and publisher, or sooner if required by new legal, regulatory or sectoral guidance.

16.2 Versioning and notice

Each version will carry an effective date and summary of substantive changes. The current version will be published on the journal website (OJS) and previous versions archived for transparency.

16.3 Amendments

Significant amendments (affecting authors or editorial processes) will be publicized via the journal website and direct communication to registered users.

17. Implementation and Contact

17.1 Implementation

The EiC is responsible for implementing these policies, ensuring staff training, and overseeing compliance.

17.2 Contact

For questions, complaints or to report concerns: [insert journal ethics contact email/address], or use the OJS contact form.

17.3 Publication of the policy

This document will be published in the journal’s “Editorial Policies” page in OJS and linked from the journal’s About and Author Guidelines pages.

18. Approval and effective implementation

This Editorial Policies document is approved by the Editor‑in‑Chief and the publisher of AgroBioTech. Implementation will commence on the effective date noted above.