Guidelines for Authors

Submission of a paper constitutes acceptance of the ethical principles of the CA.

The authors declare that the paper submitted to the CA has not been previously published in whole or parts, is not under review in other journals and will not be contributed to another journal without notification to the CA editorial board (link to the author declaration (DOC).

All authors who participated in the development of the article must be included in the authors’ team or the acknowledgements attached to the paper.

Persons who were not engaged in the creation of the article are not allowed to be included in the authors’ team.

Any change in the author team after submission of the paper to the journal is required to be approved by all authors.

Authors provide the funding sources used to develop and publish the article and disclose potential conflicts of interest (link to the conflict of interests declaration (DOC)).

The manner of acquisition, selection, interpretation and discussion of results are based on scientific principles and are not influenced by other factors, particularly financial dependencies. Manipulation of data and statistics to falsify results is not permitted.

Authors are obliged to respect others' copyrights. They must carefully verify and cite the sources of the data used; direct quotations, including from their published works, should be enclosed in inverted commas.

Authors keep the research data used to compile the articles for at least five years after submission of the paper to CA and make them available to the editors if necessary. We also recommend depositing them in open repositories (e.g. Zenodo or Mendeley Data).

Authors respect the deadlines required by the editors and inform the editorial secretary in case of problems in meeting them.

Authors are obliged to inform the editorial office of significant errors in their articles identified after publication.

All authors' ethical violations are recorded, and the editors are committed to reducing their negative impact. According to the COPE diagrams, each case is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If a deliberate unethical act by the authors is proven and the allegations are serious (plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication of data, undisclosed conflict of interests, unethical research), the editors will withdraw the paper and communicate the offence to the authors' affiliation institution.

Artificial Intelligence tools

The Current Agronomy editorial office accepts the use of Artificial Intelligence tools (AI tools), including Large Language Models (LLMs) in the linguistic editing of a work (checking spelling, grammar, and punctuation). Authors are not required to take any additional steps, such as providing the information about the tools used. However, if AI tools were used to generate text and graphics, literature screening, data analysis or interpretation authors must provide information on the name and the version (if available) of the AI tool used as well as the detailed information on how it was used to create the work in question. CA editorial office will not accept papers with AI-generated content that could potentially mislead readers regarding how the research was performed (e.g. images of non-existent experimental objects or non-existent research equipment). Authors are fully responsible for verifying and publishing elements created with AI tools. AI tools cannot be included in the list of authors as they do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Publication fees

Authors do not incur any costs for publication of an article in the Current. If these preferential conditions are changed, the fees will apply only to authors whose submissions are received by the editorial office after the date of the fee announcement on the journal's website.

Responsibilities of the corresponding author

The corresponding author is the author team's liaison with the editorial board. His/her responsibility is to:

  • complete, maintain, and provide access to all documents required by the editorial team,
  • communicate messages from the editorial office to all authors,
  • supervise the timely fulfilment of authors' obligations,
  • inform the editorial office of withdrawal of a paper and deal with related financial matters,
  • be available for contact with the editorial office throughout the publishing process.

The structure and content of the paper

  • Original paper

The title is supposed to fit the content of the work; it is not allowed to suggest an issue broader than the one covered in the article. If the subject of the dissertation is living organisms, their current Latin names should be included in the title.

The abstract (up to 200 words) should answer the questions: why the research was undertaken, what methods were used, and what results were obtained.

Keywords should include up to 6 keywords/phrases that have equivalents in the abstract and will allow the article to be searched effectively in databases.

The introduction is intended to present the background of the research. Whether anything is already known about the topic, the significance of the issue addressed, the hypothesis and the aim of the study.

The materials and methods should be described in such a way that the research can be reproduced. The following should be stated: what the location was, factors and experimental set-up, how the samples were taken, what parameters were determined, what methods, their modifications and standards were applied, what the data selection criteria were, and what the statistical processing of the results was.

The results are expected to include a description of the values and relationships obtained in the experiment and their statistical interpretation. In addition, tables and graphs can be included in this section.

The discussion is to present the interpretation of the results against the data obtained by other authors. It should include a reference to the hypothesis of the study.

Caution: The preferred structure is to separate the results and discussion. If authors combine mentioned above chapters, they are required to assure a clear separation of the results obtained in the discussed experiment and those given in the cited references.

Conclusions should contain precise and generalised results and must correspond to the aim of the research.

The literature references are to be compiled according to the recommended scheme. Each item of literature cited in the text is required to have an equivalent in the bibliography. All items from the bibliography must be mentioned in the paper.

  • Review paper

The title vividly identifies the review paper. If the article's subject is living organisms, their current Latin names should be included in the title.

The abstract (up to 200 words) is expected to justify the selection of the subject, a specification of the references employed and a brief description of the subsections' content.

Keywords ought to cover up to 6 keywords/phrases that have equivalents in the abstract and will allow the article to be searched effectively in databases.

The introduction is to provide background information on the topic under consideration, its significance and the aim of the paper.

The chapters headlined by the author have to follow a logical sequence and involve a critical analysis of information from literature references.

The summary should include a brief overview of issues already known and a presentation of topics yet to be explored.

The literature references are to be listed following the recommended scheme. Every item of literature cited in the text must have an equivalent in the bibliography. All items from the bibliography must be mentioned in the paper.

Response to reviews and correction of the paper following reviews

The author receives from each reviewer a completed review questionnaire and potential comments marked in the text of the manuscript.

The author is required to respond comprehensively to all substantive objections and comments of the reviewer.

If the author disagrees with the reviewer, he/she must thoroughly substantiate his/her position.

The form of responses to reviews and improvements to the paper is optional. However, it must provide detailed information about which comments have been omitted and why, as well as what has been modified, where and how. A tabular layout is favoured:

Notes on the review questionnaire

Reviewer's note

Author's reply

 

 

Notes in the text

Section of the text to which the reviewer's comment relates

Reviewer's note

Author's reply

A revised version of the text

 

 

 

 

 

Method of author's corrections

Following the initial acceptance of the manuscript, the author receives two proofs – first for checking the manuscript's content, and the second to check the article's composition.

The manner and time limit for completion of proofreading depends on the number of necessary changes and is determined each time by the editor.

If the author does not return the second proofreading within the required deadline, the editors have the right to publish the article without the author's approval.

Correction an article after publication

The author must inform the editorial secretary of significant errors in the published article.

Following the evaluation of the notification, the editorial board decides on the means of correction (errata, withdrawal of the paper with an appropriate clarification for the readers).

Archiving the materials

The materials concerning published papers (submitted version, reviews, revised version) are retained in the editorial office for five years from the submission year and subsequently forwarded to the National Archives.

The unpublished manuscript materials are maintained in the editorial office for two years from the year of submission and then destroyed.

The texts of published articles are stored in the National Library repository.

Processing of complaints and requests

The complaints and requests should be addressed to the Current Agronomy editorial secretary.
Responses are provided within 20 calendar days of the acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint/request.