Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The aim of Kufa Journal of  Agricultural Science is to public the scientific and applied science paper that peer-reviewed and original in different aspects of agriculture and biology.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The submitted article shall be determined by the members of the editorial board according to the competence and specialization of the member board to the article to Determination three reviewers, then sends secretly to two reviewers selected by the Editorial Secretary. when returning the article send to the researcher to correct it, then send to one of the reviewers to see the amendments made by the researcher, the decision to accept for the article take place after meeting of the editorial board and see the views of the reviewers and the researcher's corrections and references to search after modification finally Take the decision to accept the article in the journal.

 

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Editor-in–Chief

Prof. Dr. Adnan Nema Al-Asadi

 

Editorial Secretary

Prof. Dr. Jamal Ahmed Abbass

 

Editorial Manager

Asst. Prof. Dr. Laith Jaafar Hussein Hnoosh

 

Editorial Board

  • Prof. Dr. Sabah Latif Alwan 
  • Prof. Dr. Alaa Edan Hasan
  • Prof. Dr. Abdulrazzk Abdullatif
  • Prof. Dr. Abdul-Razak Mahmood Mohamed
  • Prof. Dr. Ayad Hussein Ali Almaini
  • Prof. Dr. Mayih Shabib Hadhod
  • Prof. Dr. Hamid Eibiali
  • Asst. Prof. Dr. Mima Todrova
  • Asst. Prof Dr. Akeel Yousif Alshukri
  • Asst. Prof. Dr. Aayd Kadhim Ali 
  • Asst. Prof. Dr. Riyadh Shamkhi Ali

 

Advisory Board Members

  • Prof. Dr.  Abdoun Hashim Alwan – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Ismel Kadhim Ajam – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Hadi Meziel Khudhier Al-Rubaie – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Allawi Luaibi Dagher Al-Khauzai – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Shaker Hantosh Aday – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Dihya Hassan Hussien Alhassani – Republic of Iraq
  • Prof. Dr. Jamal S. Sawwan – Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
  • Prof. Dr. Mohamed Elyes Kchouk – Republic of Tunis
  • Prof. Dr. Kourosh Vahdati –  Islamic Republic of Iran

 

Notes

  • Complaint policy?

A written request is submitted to the Editorial Secretary to object to the result of the evaluation or, if necessary, to withdraw the manuscript from the Journal.

 

  • Copyright policy?

Copyright belong only for the Journal and copyright and intellectual property also to the Journal only.

 

  • Publication policy?
  1. For Iraqi Authors- Publishing fees 125,000 I.D. as following: payment 75,000 I.D upon delivery of the article and payment 50,000 I.D when the article is accepted by the reviewers.  
  2. For Foreign Authors:  Publishing fees 100$.
  3. Cash money to the Editorial Secretary. Or sending money through currency exchange offices to the Editorial secretory

 

  • OA articles

66 articles   

 

  • What happens when a new submission is received, and what if any checks are made at this point?

The application shall be referred to the Editor's Secretary for the purpose of referring it to the English grammar to indicate the validity of the English language for publication in the Journal prepared by the researcher and re-sent to the Journal for the purpose of sending it to the scientific referees to indicate the validity of admission to the Journal.

 

  • How are peer reviewers identified, and who makes the final selection of peer reviewers?

It shall be determined by the members of the editorial board according to the competence and specialization of the member board to the article to determination three reviewers, then sends secretly to two reviewers selected by the Editorial Secretary. When returning the article send to the researcher to correct it, then send to one of the reviewers to see the amendments made by the researcher, the decision to accept for the article take place after meeting of the editorial board and see the views of the reviewers and the researcher's corrections and references to search after modification finally Take the decision to accept the article in the Journal.

 

  • Who communicates the decision to the authors?

Editorial Board

 

  • How is the revised manuscript assessed?

Editor's Secretary

 

  • What is the role of the editorial board in the peer review process?

Determining the reviewers and taking their views and making the decision to accept the manuscript.

 

  • Who is responsible for the final decision to accept/reject the article?

Editorial Board

 

  • What is your main reason for applying to join?

 Scientific specialization, scientific background and scientific degree.  

 

Publishing ethics and integrity

Kufa Journal for Agricultural Sciences is committed to peer review integrity and upholding the highest standards. To help us maintain these high standards, we provide guidelines for ethical publishing for authors, reviewers, and journal editors. 

 

1. Ethics guidance for authors

We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following our ethical guidelines they have agreed to review which include:

A-    Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

B-    Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review a manuscript, including any relationship with the author that may potentially bias their review.

C-    Reviewers should mention in their reports that the manuscript has been cited the previous literature appropriately and if not, they should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

D-    Reviewers must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside the peer-review process.

E-     Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer-review report.

F-     Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person’s reputation.

G-    Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner, informing the editor if this is not possible.

H-    Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

 

2. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following our ethical guidelines they have agreed to review which include:

A-    Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

B-    Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review a manuscript, including any relationship with the author that may potentially bias their review.

C-    Reviewers should mention in their reports that the manuscript has been cited the previous literature appropriately and if not, they should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

D-    Reviewers must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside the peer-review process.

E-     Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer-review report.

F-     Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person’s reputation.

G-    Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner, informing the editor if this is not possible.

H-    Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

 

3. Ethics guidance for editors

We ask all journal editors to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines of Kufa Journal for Agriculture Science for that are worthy of peer review:

A- Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.

B- Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

C- Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.

This mean the best practice for editors would include:

  • Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, protection of research subjects (including animals)
  • Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • Considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications( e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
  • Sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive
  • Seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
  • Encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
  • Monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
  • Developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
  • Ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
  • Ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
  • Using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases).

 

4. Ethics for editorial board members

Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

This mean best practice for editors would include:

  • Regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
  • Providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:

A - Acting as ambassadors for the journal

B - Supporting and promoting the journal

C - Seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions

D - Reviewing submissions to the journal

F - Attending and contributing to editorial board meetings.

G - Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal.

H- Consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

 

5. Intellectual property

Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Best practice for editors would include:

  • Adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. Truntin software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised.
  • Being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites)
  • The publisher should be signature a commitment paper after the article accepted by the reviewers.