Peer Review Process

EJSS operates a double-blind (double-anonymised) peer review: reviewers do not know the identities or affiliations of the authors, and authors are not told the identities of the reviewers. Authors therefore submit an anonymised manuscript and a separate Title Page.

Editorial pre-screening

Every new submission is first assessed by the Editors-in-Chief or a designated editor for:

• fit with the aims and scope of the journal;
• article type and contribution (EJSS publishes original Research Articles only);
• originality and international relevance;
• design, methods, statistics and reporting;
• ethics and the required declarations;
• language, organisation and compliance with the Instructions for Authors;
• text overlap, duplicate publication and other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that are outside the scope, insufficiently original, methodologically weak, incomplete, poorly prepared or ethically problematic may be declined without external review. Potentially suitable manuscripts that do not yet meet the submission requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision. The criteria applied are set out in the Editorial Pre-Screening Form (PDF).

Pre-screening and all editorial decisions are carried out by the editors. Submitted manuscripts are confidential and are not uploaded, in whole or in part, to any external or generative AI system at any stage of the editorial process.

Similarity checking

Similarity-detection software is used as one part of pre-screening. The journal normally expects an overall similarity score below 15%, excluding references, tables and figures. Editors assess the nature, location and source of any overlap rather than relying on the score alone. Plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate publication or concealed redundancy may lead to rejection regardless of the score.

Reviewer selection

Manuscripts that pass pre-screening are normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise, an appropriate publication record, methodological competence and no conflict of interest. Additional scientific or statistical review may be requested.

Editors do not invite reviewers who have recently collaborated closely with the authors, share a current institutional affiliation with them, have a supervisory or personal relationship with them, are their direct competitors, or have any other interest that could affect their impartiality.

EJSS does not ask authors to suggest reviewers. Authors may, however, ask in the Cover Letter that specific individuals not be invited, giving a reason; the editors will consider such requests but are not bound by them.

Review criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript using the Reviewer Evaluation Form (PDF), in particular:

• novelty, significance and relevance;
• hypotheses or research questions;
• sampling or experimental design, controls and replication;
• transparency and reproducibility of the methods;
• appropriateness of the statistical analysis;
• accuracy and completeness of the results;
• quality of interpretation and engagement with the literature, including acknowledgement of the study’s limitations;
• consistency between data, conclusions and claims;
• tables, figures and references;
• ethical, authorship, data and competing-interest concerns.

Conduct of reviewers

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, constructive and confidential; personal criticism is not acceptable. Reviewers must not use unpublished material for their own advantage, must declare any conflict of interest promptly, and must not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to any external or generative AI system.

Editorial decisions

After review, the handling editor considers the reports and the manuscript and reaches one of four decisions: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision or Reject. Reviewers’ recommendations inform but do not determine the decision. Where reports conflict or specialist assessment is needed, the editor may seek an additional opinion. The Editors-in-Chief hold final responsibility for all decisions. Authors receive the decision together with the reviewers’ comments, without the reviewers’ identities.

Revisions

Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a clean version, a version with tracked changes and a point-by-point response to all comments, with line numbers. Manuscripts requiring major revision are normally returned to the original reviewers. A manuscript normally undergoes no more than two rounds of revision. Authors who need more time may request an extension from the Editorial Office before the deadline; revisions not submitted within the deadline, without an approved extension, may be closed.

Target timelines

EJSS aims to process every manuscript within the following target times. Actual times may vary with the availability of reviewers and the extent of the revisions required.

Reviewers are normally asked to submit their reports within 21 days of accepting an invitation.

Accepted articles first appear online as Articles in Press. They are then assigned to the next available issue, where they receive their final page numbers and DOI. Until then, an Article in Press may be cited as: Author(s), Year. Title. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, in press.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by submitting a concise, evidence-based explanation of a substantial factual or procedural error. Disagreement with academic judgement alone is not sufficient. Where practicable, the appeal is handled by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Submissions by editors

Manuscripts by editors or Editorial Board members are evaluated to the same standards and are handled by an independent editor. Author-editors have no access to the reviewers’ identities or the editorial deliberations beyond the normal author interface.

Recognition of reviewers

EJSS thanks its reviewers each year by publishing the list of reviewers (see Reviewers). Reviewers may add their reviews to their Web of Science Reviewer Recognition profile.