Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches (JAAR) published quarterly by Faculty of Agriculture Saba Basha, Alexandria University. The journal is administered by an international Board. The journal publishes original articles on all aspects of agriculture and related subjects. Research papers, short communications, Case studies, Letters to the editor, and review articles are published based on their scientific content. Each published article is independently examined by two qualified reviewers as a blind peer-review.

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”. Research articles published in JAAR are immediately freely available to read, download and share.

JAAR is indexed in Egypt- Bibl. Database.

Open access:

JAAR is an Open Access journal. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles under the following conditions: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Journal Article © 2021 by Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches (JAAR) is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 

Aims and Scope

Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches (JAAR) is a Journal of agricultural science published quarterly for the exchange and dissemination of information, research, innovative practices and developments in the fields of agriculture.

Topics covered include, but are not limited to:

• Agricultural economics
• Agricultural engineering
• Agricultural extension
• Agricultural nanotechnology
• Agriculture-toxicology interactions
• Agriculture and rural economy interactions
• Agriculture microbiology
• Agriculture-environment interactions
• Agronomy
• Aquaculture
• Animal Science
• Bioremediation
• Biotechnology
• Cotton production and technology
• Crop genetics and breeding
• Crop Water Management
• Crops and quality
• Dairy science and technology
• Economic entomology
• Emerging contaminants
• Environmental analysis
• Experimental agriculture
• Food Science and technology
• Forestry and environmental technology
• Health and food nutrition
• Home economics
• Horticulture
• Management of natural ecosystems
• Natural resources and the environment
• Organic agriculture
• Ornamental plants
• Plant diseases
• Plant pest management
• Post-harvest technology
• Poultry breeding, physiology, and nutrition
• Precision agriculture
• Remediation
• Soil perspective of sustainable development
• Soil science
• Sustainable agriculture
• Veterinary Science
• Water resources management

Policies and Processes

Publication Ethics

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. The journal will follow the best guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.

Ethical Obligations of JAAR Editors and reviewers

The ethical obligations and responsibilities of editors and reviewers of JAAR are summarized as follows:

1. Editors and reviewers should declare any conflict of interest with author, or any organization referred to in any received publication.
2. The editor in chief is responsible for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript and the reviewers chosen for their experience. However, manuscripts could be rejected without review if the editor consider the manuscript is either inappropriate or out of the scope of the journal or needs extensive editing.
3. The reviewer gives an honest and unbiased advice to the Editor.
4. The review process should be transparent, unbiased, and carried out in reasonable time.
5. The editor and editorial board and staff should keep all details of a submission confidential.
6. The intellectual independence of authors should be respected by the editors.
7. The responsibility of the editorial board towards the manuscript authored by a member of the editorial board and submitted to the Journal is to make sure that the manuscript is delegated to a qualified person and that such manuscript would constitute a conflict of interest.
8. Unpublished information or, arguments should only be used with the consent of the author.
9. If an editor received a convincing evidence that some published materials in a manuscript published by the journal are erroneous, the editor should publish a report pointing out the errors and if possible, the correction.
10. The author can suggest certain reviewers for the submitted manuscript and the editor may use one or two of the suggested reviewers if he/she feels that their opinion is important for manuscript evaluation. However, the editor can choose other reviewers based on their expertise.

Ethical responsibilities of authors

Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which includes:

1. The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous
2. consideration.
3. The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work
4. concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material
5. to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self-plagiarism”)).
6. A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and
7. submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).
8. No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions.
9. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the authors own (“plagiarism”).
10. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted.
11. Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.
12. Consent to submit has been received from all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out before the work is submitted.
13. Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.
14. Changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript.
15. Requests to add or delete authors at revision stage or after publication is a serious matter and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. The decision on accepting the change rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.
16. Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.

If there is a suspicion of misconduct, the journal will carry out an investigation following the JAAR and Alexandria University guidelines. If, after investigation, the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the accused author will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. If misconduct has been proven, this may result in the Editor-in-Chief’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:

– If the article is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.

– If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction, either an erratum will be placed with the article or in severe cases complete retraction of the article will occur. The reason must be given in the published erratum or retraction note.

– The author’s institution may be informed.

Peer Review Process

The peer review process is very important to ensure that the journal eventually publishes high quality manuscripts. The peer review process is executed in five steps:

1. Manuscript submission and editorial assessment

The manuscript is submitted through our online system and the editorial office checks the submitted manuscript to ensure that Author Guidelines have been followed.

2. Primary evaluation and assigning Editor

The Editor in chief checks the manuscript for structure, format, originality, scope, and plagiarism. If it passes the primary evaluation, an Editor will be assigned to handle the manuscript. If not, the manuscript will be rejected.

 3. Reviewers Invitation and Response

The Editor who handles the manuscript will send invitations to reviewers. Reviewers will be selected based on area of expertise and availability. Upon acceptance of the invitations and the required number of reviewers is obtained, the review process will start.

4. Conducting Review and Journal evaluation

The reviewers will evaluate the submitted manuscript based on:

• New findings – unique contribution.
• Interest to the professional audience.
• The importance of the findings to science.
• Clarity of materials presented without excessive jargon.
• The purpose and scope of the manuscript are clearly presented.
• The literature is adequately discussed to introduce the purpose of the manuscript.
• The body of the manuscript is well-organized and substantive.
• Adequate number of graphs or charts.
• The discussion/conclusion section(s) adequately discuss the findings.
• The discussion/conclusion section(s) relate the findings of the manuscript adequately to current literature.
• The reference list is of JAAR Style.
• The manuscript is written in correct language.
• The methodology is adequately explained.
• Appropriate statistical tests are used.

The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept it as is, needs minor revisions, needs major revisions, or reject. The associate editor in charge needs major revisions will consider all the reviewers opinion before making an overall decision. Then the editor in-chief will inform the corresponding author by email the decision along with the comments of all reviewers.

 5. Responding to peer review comments

In responding to peer review comments, the corresponding author should:

• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers.
• Furnish a response letter describes the revisions that have been made in detail.
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any comments you do not disagree with.
• Show the major revisions in the text, by highlighting the changes.
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time-frame indicated.
• If accepted, the manuscript will be sent to production.