| name | agsy-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
Review Process (agsy-review-process)
Knowing how AgSy screens and decides lets you pre-empt the failure modes before submitting. AgSy is
single anonymized (reviewers see the authors), screens for fit and genuine systems content, and
sends suitable papers to a minimum of two expert reviewers; the editor makes the decision.
Source-map process facts were refreshed from ScienceDirect on 2026-06-20; live-check them before a
real upload because review wording and submission links can change.
When to trigger
- Before submitting, to stress-test against desk-rejection and reviewer concerns
- Deciding whether a piece fits the Perspective (rapid-review) track
- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
- Understanding what systems reviewers are likely to weigh
How AgSy review works
- Single anonymized. Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know reviewers. There is no
manuscript anonymization step (unlike a double-anonymous journal).
- Editor screening / desk decision. Editors screen for scope and fit first — is this a
systems paper (interactions, hierarchical levels, modelling, trade-offs), and does it have the
substantive natural-science + interaction content AgSy requires? Single-factor field trials and
black-box model demos are common desk rejections.
- External review. Suitable submissions go to a minimum of two expert reviewers for
independent assessment of scientific quality.
- Decision. Accept / minor or major revision / reject — taken by the journal's editors.
- Perspective rapid review. Perspective articles undergo a rapid review process for a short
submission-to-publication time; authors should consult editors before submitting a Perspective where
the Guide requires it.
What systems reviewers weigh
- Is there a real systems question (interactions, trade-offs), or a dressed-up single-factor study?
- Is the model described, justified, and calibrated, with an independent evaluation?
- Are sensitivity and uncertainty characterized?
- Are trade-offs surfaced and the decision relevance clear?
- Are data, code, and the model shareable (Elsevier research-data policy)?
Shape the paper to pass
- Make the systems question explicit up front (avoids a "not a systems paper" desk rejection).
- Describe and evaluate the model properly (avoids the "black box" reviewer objection).
- Surface trade-offs and decision relevance (avoids "no clear application").
- Have data/code/model deposit ready (avoids a late reproducibility hold).
Desk-screen gate (what trips the early decision)
Before external review, the editor screens for fit and substance. Map your submission to the gate:
- Systems content present? If the only "interaction" is a treatment effect, it reads as a field trial
— a common fit desk rejection.
- Model assessable? A black-box model (no version, calibration, or evaluation) cannot be reviewed and
is screened out or returned.
- Decision relevance visible? If the "so what for a decision" is absent, expect "no clear application."
- Track correct? A full study in the Perspective slot, or a Perspective padded to a paper, is a
type/length mismatch caught early.
Referee pushback → the AgSy-specific fix
- "This is a dressed-up single-factor study." → Make the interaction and trade-off explicit up front
(see
agsy-systems-framing-and-modeling).
- "The model is a black box." → Describe, justify, and independently evaluate it before review.
- "Where is the uncertainty?" → Add sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to the conclusion-bearing
outputs.
Anti-patterns
- Submitting a single-factor field trial to a systems journal (fit desk rejection)
- A model with no calibration/evaluation, sensitivity, or uncertainty
- Expecting double-anonymous handling — AgSy is single anonymized
- Treating a Perspective as a full research paper (wrong track and length)
Review-risk pass for Agricultural Systems
Run this as a concrete capability pass. First lock the system boundary, actor decision, model/data linkage, and sustainability or food-security tradeoff; then test whether the manuscript addresses agricultural-systems reviewers who expect crop, farm, value-chain, environment, and policy components to be connected rather than listed.
- Primary move: Turn likely reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
- Sibling comparison: compare against Field Crops Research for plot-level agronomy, Global Food Security for policy synthesis, Agricultural Economics for economics-first work; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Fit check】genuine systems question (interactions/trade-offs)? [Y/N]
【Model rigor】described + calibrated + independently evaluated? [Y/N]
【Sensitivity/uncertainty】characterized? [Y/N]
【Decision relevance】trade-offs + application clear? [Y/N]
【Track】standard vs Perspective (rapid review)
【Realistic outcome】reject / major / minor / (rare) accept
【Next】agsy-submission (or agsy-revision-and-rebuttal if decided)
Supplementary resources
