Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering Author FAQs

did the experiment, but then changed some of the data. Both of these practices make people distrust scientists. If the public is mistrustful of science,

then it will be less willing to provide funding support.

? Plagiarism:

Taking the ideas and work of others without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even from one sentence from someone else’s

manuscript, or even one of your own that has previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism—use your own

words instead.

? Multiple submissions:

It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and

peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of journals if published in more than one.

? Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications):

This means publishing many similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. It can make readers less likely to pay attention to

your manuscripts.

? Improper author contribution or attribution:

All of the listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and have approved

all its claims. Do not forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians

What happens when a new submission is received, and what initial checks are made?

The Editor-in-Chief screens a new submission when it is received. This is an important step to ensure that (1) the content falls within

the scope of the journal, (2) the manuscript follows the editorial policy and procedural guidelines, and (3) that it does not contain an

unacceptable level of overlap with any published work. A manuscript will be rejected without further review if it fails to meet one or

more of these conditions, and the author will be notified accordingly. If a manuscript passes this initial check, it is then sent for review

to a minimum of two internal or external reviewers selected by the journal.

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

The journal’s Managing Editor handles all aspects of the peer review process. Peer reviewers are drawn from both the journal’s editorial

board and the wider academic community. The Associate Editor makes the final selection of peer reviewers.

Who assesses the reviewer reports and makes a decision on the submission, and how is the decision reached?

The Editor-in-Chief assesses the reviewer reports and makes all decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, and revision. Submitted

manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should

be accepted, revised or rejected.

They may also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct such as plagiarism and unethical behavior.

It is rare for manuscripts to be accepted without the need for revision. Accepted papers usually require subsequent rounds of revision

by the authors.

Cases where the recommendations of the reviewers differ are obviously more problematic. In these cases, the Editor-in-Chief will

undertake a careful reading of the manuscript in an attempt to reconcile competing viewpoints and render a fair decision. All reviewer

reports are returned to authors with a decision letter from the Managing Editor. Where there is disagreement among different reviewers

the Managing Editor seeks to offer guidance to authors on how to proceed in pursuing a revision.

Who communicates the decision to the authors?

All communication with authors are managed by the journal’s Managing Editor.

How is the revised manuscript assessed?

Revised manuscripts, along with the document detailing the authors’ responses to the reviewer’s comments and related text changes,

are normally returned to the original panel of reviewers for reassessment. It is at this editor’s discretion how the revised version is

further evaluated, be it editorially or with input from external peer reviewers. It is not unusual for revised manuscripts to be sent back

to the original peer reviewers for further input, especially when the original concerns were substantial. In some cases, the opinion of

an additional reviewer may be sought.
The acceptance of a revised manuscript is never guaranteed, but the decision letter will usually provide general guidance intended

to be helpful in achieving that end.

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

The reviewers and Associate Editors will recommend their decisions to the Editor-in-Chief, who will then be responsible for the final

decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

What is the journal’s policy on digital archiving?

FASE articles are made freely available on our website (http://engineering.cae.cn) as soon as possible after they are accepted and are also

formally archived in China Academic Library & Information System (CALIS).

CALIS is one of the three public service systems approved by the State Council of China. The management centre of CALIS is located

in Peking University.

What is the journal’s position on competing interests?

The submitting author is asked at submission to declare, on behalf of all authors, whether there are any financial, personal or

professional interests that could be construed to have influenced the paper. Reviewers are also asked to declare any interests

that might interfere with their objective assessment of a manuscript. Any relevant competing interests of authors must be

available to editors and reviewers during the review process and will be stated in published articles.

Who do I contact if I have a complaint?

FASE is pleased to hear from authors and readers. If you have any complaints, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Administered by

Author FAQs