Peer review, or expert assessment, of submitted manuscripts is conducted to maintain the high scientific, theoretical, and methodological standards of the Bulletin of the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University. The peer-review procedure is intended to ensure the careful selection of materials for publication, the objective assessment of their scientific quality, reliability, and practical significance, and the determination of whether the manuscript complies with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, principles of academic integrity and publication ethics, and standards of scientific writing.
Reviewers must conduct their assessments impartially, confidentially, and on the basis of well-reasoned arguments. When preparing their reports, reviewers must apply scientific criteria, avoid personal comments about the authors, and comply with the provisions of the “Publication Ethics” section. Any information contained in a manuscript must not be used by reviewers for personal, professional, or other purposes before the article has been officially published.
1. Peer-Review Model
The Bulletin of the Kyrgyz National Agrarian University applies a double-blind, or double-anonymous, peer-review model. This model ensures the mutual anonymity of the parties at every stage of the assessment process:
- reviewers are not informed of the authors’ surnames, first names, affiliations, or other personal details;
- authors are not informed of the reviewers’ surnames, affiliations, or other identifying information.
The Editorial Office takes the necessary measures to preserve the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Before a manuscript is sent for expert assessment, any information that may directly or indirectly reveal the identity of the author is removed from the text and the electronic file properties.
2. Preliminary Consideration of the Manuscript
All research articles submitted to the Editorial Office undergo an initial screening. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for compliance with the requirements set out in the “Terms of Publication” and “Formatting Guidelines” sections.
Only manuscripts that meet the following criteria are admitted to peer review:
- they correspond to the scope and principal scientific fields of the journal;
- they contain original research findings or a scientifically substantiated review of a relevant issue;
- they are prepared in accordance with the journal’s editorial requirements;
- they have the required structure and contain all mandatory information;
- they have been checked for text originality, improper borrowing, duplicate publication, and possible copyright infringement;
- they comply with the principles of publication ethics and academic integrity.
Where a manuscript falls outside the journal’s scope, contains substantial formatting deficiencies, shows signs of plagiarism, or fails to meet the basic criteria of a research article, the Editorial Office reserves the right to reject it before external peer review.
3. Initial Editorial Assessment
The preliminary scientific assessment of a manuscript is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, or an authorised member of the Editorial Board. During this initial assessment, the manuscript is evaluated for conformity with the journal’s scope, scientific relevance, topicality, structure, and compliance with the principal editorial requirements.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author of the submitted article, or has a family, professional, financial, or other relationship with the authors that may affect the objectivity of the decision, the Editor-in-Chief must not participate in the consideration of the manuscript. In such cases, the initial assessment is conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.
Following a positive outcome of the initial screening, the manuscript is forwarded to the Technical Editor. The Technical Editor assigns a registration code to the article, records the date of receipt, checks the electronic file, and removes information concerning the authors, their institutions, contact details, funding sources, and any other elements that may reveal authorship.
4. Submission of the Article for Peer Review
After anonymisation, the manuscript is sent to:
- the member of the Editorial Board responsible for the relevant scientific field;
- two independent external experts specialising in the scientific field to which the submitted research relates.
External reviewers are generally selected from among doctors of science, professors, leading researchers, and other qualified specialists with relevant scientific publications and recognised expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
On behalf of the Editorial Office, a potential reviewer is sent an official invitation to conduct an expert assessment. The invitation is accompanied by an anonymised version of the article and the journal’s standard review form.
An external reviewer must be independent of both the author and the submitted research. A reviewer must not:
- be employed by the same institution or structural unit as the author;
- be the author’s academic supervisor, consultant, subordinate, or close co-author;
- have participated in the preparation of the research or manuscript;
- have a personal, professional, financial, or other interest in the acceptance or rejection of the article;
- use unpublished data, ideas, or findings from the manuscript for personal benefit.
Where an invited expert identifies a conflict of interest, lacks sufficient expertise to assess the research, or is unable to prepare the review within the specified period, the expert must notify the Editorial Office and decline the invitation to review.
5. Expert Assessment Criteria
During the peer-review process, experts assess the scientific content, methodological quality, reliability of the findings, and validity of the conclusions presented in the article. The review must address the following matters:
- whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in its title;
- whether the manuscript corresponds to the scope and scientific orientation of the journal;
- whether the issue under consideration is relevant and scientifically significant;
- whether the article contains elements of scientific novelty;
- whether the aim and objectives of the research are clearly formulated;
- whether the selected methodology is appropriate for the stated aim;
- whether the materials, methods, sample, research conditions, and stages of the study are described in sufficient detail;
- whether the findings are reliable, logically presented, and properly interpreted;
- whether the conclusions are supported by the findings presented;
- whether the theoretical and practical significance of the research is adequately substantiated;
- whether scientific sources, statistical data, tables, figures, and other materials are used correctly;
- whether the reference list corresponds to the subject of the research and includes current publications;
- whether the requirements of academic integrity and publication ethics have been observed;
- whether the article is of interest to specialists and the wider readership of the journal.
Reviewers must not only identify shortcomings but should, wherever possible, provide specific recommendations for improving the content, structure, methodology, reasoning, and presentation of the manuscript. Comments must be formulated appropriately, clearly, and professionally.
6. Possible Reviewer Recommendations
Following the expert assessment, the reviewer completes the standard review form and selects one of the following recommendations:
- accept the article for publication without changes;
- accept the article for publication subject to minor revision;
- accept the article for publication subject to major revision;
- reject the article.
Minor revision may include clarifying individual statements, improving the structure of the text, supplementing bibliographic information, correcting technical errors, or making other changes that do not affect the principal methodology or findings of the research.
Major revision may include reconsideration of the methodological description, additional justification of the sample and research methods, more detailed analysis of the findings, expansion of the discussion, clarification of the scientific novelty, revision of the conclusions, or correction of other substantial deficiencies.
Where a reviewer recommends rejecting an article or returning it for revision, the reviewer must provide a written and reasoned explanation of the recommendation. The comments must relate to the scientific content, methodology, reliability of the findings, quality of presentation, or compliance with the journal’s requirements.
Reviews must be signed by reviewers using either a handwritten or electronic signature. Signed documents are retained by the Editorial Office for three years from the publication date of the journal issue in which the reviewed article appeared, or from the date on which the final decision on the manuscript was made.
7. Revision and Further Peer Review
After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the Editorial Office sends the author the decision of the Editorial Board. Where the manuscript requires revision, the author is provided with anonymised copies of the reviewers’ reports or a list of comments without disclosure of the experts’ personal details.
When preparing the revised version, the author must:
- address all substantiated comments made by the reviewers;
- highlight or list the changes made;
- provide a written response to each comment;
- give a reasoned explanation where particular recommendations have not been followed;
- submit the revised manuscript within the period specified by the Editorial Office.
After the revised version has been received, the article may be returned to the same reviewers or sent to other independent experts. During the further assessment, reviewers examine whether the author has addressed the identified deficiencies fully and appropriately.
Reviewers may request additional clarification or recommend further revision where the changes made are incomplete or raise new questions concerning the content of the research.
A request for revision does not constitute automatic acceptance of the article for publication. Where the author fails to address substantial comments, does not provide a reasoned response, or makes changes that the reviewers consider unsatisfactory, the article may be rejected.
8. Disagreement Between Reviewers
Where the recommendations of the two external reviewers differ substantially, for example where one expert recommends publication and the other recommends rejection, the Editorial Office considers the arguments presented by both reviewers.
Where necessary, the manuscript is sent to a third independent expert. The additional reviewer’s report is taken into account by the Editorial Board when making the final decision, but it does not replace a comprehensive assessment of all reports received.
The Editorial Office may request additional clarification from reviewers where their conclusions are insufficiently reasoned or inconsistent with the content of their reports.
9. Final Publication Decision
After completion of the peer-review process, the Editor-in-Chief considers the reviewers’ reports, the author’s responses, and the revised version of the manuscript. The final decision is made with due regard to:
- the recommendations of all reviewers;
- the validity of the comments made;
- the completeness of the revisions introduced by the author;
- the scientific novelty and practical significance of the research;
- the article’s conformity with the journal’s scope and requirements;
- compliance with the principles of publication ethics and academic integrity.
A positive review does not in itself constitute an unconditional basis for publication. The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject a manuscript where substantial scientific, ethical, legal, or editorial issues are identified following expert assessment.
The Editor-in-Chief must not participate in the consideration of, or decision-making on, manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editor-in-Chief’s family, close colleagues, or persons with whom the Editor-in-Chief has professional, financial, or other relationships that may affect the objectivity of the decision.
The Editor-in-Chief must also withdraw from the consideration of materials relating to products, services, organisations, or projects in which the Editor-in-Chief has a personal or financial interest.
Such articles undergo independent editorial assessment and external peer review without the participation of the Editor-in-Chief or members of the Editor-in-Chief’s research group. The final decision concerning such manuscripts is made by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or another authorised member of the Editorial Board who has no conflict of interest.
10. Notification of Authors
The Editorial Office notifies the author of its decision by email. The decision may be one of the following:
- acceptance of the article for publication;
- a request for minor revision;
- a request for major revision and further peer review;
- rejection of the manuscript.
Where an article is rejected, the author is provided with a reasoned conclusion or the principal grounds for the decision. The Editorial Office is not obliged to enter into prolonged correspondence concerning a rejected manuscript; however, the author may use the appeals procedure where such a procedure is provided for by the journal’s policies.
11. Peer-Review Timeframes
The standard period for expert assessment is between two and four weeks from the date on which the anonymised manuscript is sent to the reviewers.
The duration of the peer-review process may be extended depending on the subject matter of the research, the complexity of the submitted material, the need to engage specialists with highly specific expertise, the need for additional or further review, and the extent of the revisions required.
The average period between the date of receipt of a manuscript by the Editorial Office and the first editorial decision is between four and eight weeks. The first decision may be acceptance, a request for revision, or rejection of the manuscript.
These timeframes are indicative. The Editorial Office takes reasonable measures to ensure the timely consideration of manuscripts but cannot guarantee completion of the peer-review process within a strictly defined period where additional expert assessment is required to ensure an objective evaluation of the article.