About the Journal

About the Journal

Aims and Scope of Journal

The concept of the journal Agricultural Law Review is oriented towards a broad approach to agricultural law that covers, besides agriculture understood in the traditional way, also legal issues concerning food, environment, rural areas and rural landscape and combines the local element with the global one. In the context of Poland's membership in the European Union, it was even necessary to take into account the experience of other EU Member states in the implementation of EU agricultural law. Moreover, in order to facilitate the exchange and access to the publications included in the Agricultural Law Review, from the very beginning all articles published are accompanied with abstracts in the English language, and since the 2nd issue in 2007, also in Italian.

Anti-plagiarism policy

To ensure the originality and high quality of published articles, the journal applies the latest procedures for evaluating them, and uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system using iThenticate software. The system makes it possible to identify similarities in a text by comparing it with publications available on the Internet and indexed databases, and identifying the sources of passages. Works in which borrowings from other authors are found inappropriately cited or plagiarized will be rejected by the editors, and violations of either copyright or good scientific practice will be reported to the management of the author's employing institution. If plagiarism is found in a published paper, the Editorial Board will withdraw the text and post a notice to this effect on the journal's website and/or in the printed version.

Review procedure

§ 1. Preliminary assessment

  1. Publications in the journal “Agricultural Law Review” are reviewed in accordance with the general guidelines for the reviewing procedure and publishing policy adopted by "Agricultural Law Review".
  2. The submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editorial Committee (for compliance with the profile of the journal, fulfilment of the requirements of a scientific text and other formal requirements). Manuscripts not meeting these requirements will be returned to their authors for possible improvement. The authors' nationality, ethnic origin, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious and political beliefs do not influence the assessment of the manuscript submitted.

§ 2. Reviewing principles

  1. Reviews are anonymous and subject to a double-blind review process. The identity of reviewers of individual manuscripts is not revealed to the authors.
  2. The assessment based on a review sheet includes: the nature of the text, the correctness of the formulation of the title, the topicality of the problem and the originality of the approach to the topic, the correctness of the formulation of the research problem, the method of research, the methodological assumptions of the article, the formal correctness of the text, the extent of the literature and case law used, compliance with the profile of the journal, the extent of problem solving and the author's contribution to science, the correctness of the argumentation.
  3. Reviewers are required to observe the rules of publication ethics applicable to “Agricultural Law Review.”
  4. Reviews should be performed objectively. Personal criticism of the author is considered inappropriate. Reviewers should express their assessments clearly, and support their comments with appropriate arguments.
  5. All reviewed papers must be treated as confidential information. They may not be disclosed or discussed with anyone other than the authorised members of the Editorial Committee.
  6. Confidential information must be kept confidential and may not be used for purposes other than the preparation of the review.

§ 3. Selection of reviewers

  1. Reviewers are selected from among specialists in a given field. Due to the subject matter of the manuscripts submitted to the journal, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, a member of the Scientific Council may be appointed as a reviewer.
  2. At least one reviewer from abroad shall be appointed to review a manuscript submitted by a foreign author. There must be no conflict of interest between such an reviewer and the author of the manuscript.
  3. If a selected reviewer feels unable to review the article or knows that it will not be possible to produce a review promptly, such reviewer should inform the Editors of this fact within 7 days of receiving a request for a review.
  4. Reviews of manuscripts are made free of charge according to the rules formulated herein.

§ 4. The reviewing process

  1. After a positive initial assessment, the submitted manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Committee or the Scientific Council of the journal (with the exceptions specified in § 3.1), nor are employees of the entity publishing the journal. The reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the author of the manuscript. A conflict of interest is understood to be a relationship resulting from competition, collaboration or other relationships of a personal, financial or professional nature between the reviewer and any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should not belong to the scientific unit affiliated by the author.
  2. The reviewer should inform the Editor of any significant similarity or an overlap in the content of the manuscript under review with any other published work known to the reviewer, or of a suspicion of plagiarism.
  3. The review must be in writing. The conclusion in the review may be of the following wording: a) admissible for publication, b) admissible for publication provided that appropriate changes are made, c) negative, in accordance with the review form below.
  4. The reviewers' comments shall be communicated to the author of the manuscript within 7 days of the receipt of the reviews. The author shall enclose responses to the reviews to the revised version of the manuscript.
  5. The corrected manuscript together with the response to the reviewers’ comments must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for approval.
    Review Form

§ 5. Acceptance of the manuscript for publication

  1. Only manuscripts that have not been previously published shall be accepted for publication.
  2. The condition for accepting a manuscript for publication shall be two unequivocally positive reviews. In the event of two extremely different assessments of a manuscript, the decision whether to accept the manuscript for publication shall lie with the Editorial Committee which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.
  3. Only those manuscripts which have received two unequivocally positive reviews and which have been approved by the Editorial Committee shall be accepted for publication.
  4. The condition for the publication of a corrected manuscript is an account taken in it for all comments made by the reviewers.
  5. The final decision about the publication of a positively revised manuscript in a given issue of the journal shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief.

§ 6. Reviewers' data

  1. Reviews and the entire documentation of the reviewing process shall be kept in the archives of the Editorial Office.
  2. The names of reviewers of articles from a given calendar year are published in the first issue of "Agricultural Law Review" of the following year and on the website https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ppr/recenzenci.

 

Publication schedule

Two issues of the year, the printed version is the original  version.

Politics of open access

Access to the “Agricultural Law Review” is open and its full content is available online.

Principles of ethics

  1. The Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review undertakes to observe standards of ethical conduct in all its activities.
  2. The Editorial Board attaches particular importance to scientific integrity and adherence to the ethical principles applicable to science and scholarship. In terms of good practice and publication ethics, the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed. They may be found at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines.
  3. Additionally, in order to ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Office uses the anti-plagiarism system Crossref Similarity Check (crossref.org/services/similarity-check/).
  4. All persons involved in the publication process are obliged to observe the ethical principles adopted in Agricultural Law Review.

Responsabiities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  1. comply with the relevant copyright legislation, to respect the integrity and originality of the manuscripts submitted for publication, which must not have not been published previously either in part or in full, and have not been submitted for publication in another journal;
  2. ensure correct and legible citation of works used or quotations from other authors in the text: no form of unlawful attribution of authorship to the whole or part of another's work or deliberate misrepresentation of the authorship of a work (whether overt or covert plagiarism) shall be acceptable;
  3. correctly and legibly mark in the text excerpts from own previously published works (no form of self-plagiarism is allowed);
  4. disclose conflicts of interest, if any, which may affect the results of the research or their interpretation;
  5. provide information on the source of research funding if the text is the result of an externally funded project;
  6. provide specific percentages of co-authorship of the work if there is more than one author; disclosure as co-authors of all persons who have made significant contributions to the text in terms of its conception, design, execution, interpretation of research results, conclusions, etc.;
  7. include a note of acknowledgement to persons or institutions who have contributed to the text but are not co-authors;
  8. prevent 'ghostwriting' and 'guest(gift) authorship' practices, in particular by ensuring that no person who is not a co-author of the manuscript is listed as a contributor;
  9. provide information on the affiliation, employment or collaboration in order to avoid links with reviewers in order to enable their objective selection;
  10. comply with the open data requirements set out in the Agricultural Law Review, in particular, be prepared to make the data publicly available if possible;
  11. to participate in the review process, in particular to correct all errors indicated, to make suggested changes. Should the Author disagree with the Reviewer's or Editor's comments, a written justification of the objection should be provided;
  12. at the Editorial Board's request, provide the research data referred to in the manuscript under review;
  13. inform the Editorial Board if a significant error or inaccuracy is detected in the published work, and cooperate with the relevant Editor in order to publish a correction or, if necessary, withdraw the article from circulation.

Responsabilities of the members of the Editorial Board

  1. The Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review supervises the observance of ethical principles throughout the entire publication process of the manuscript in the journal and takes measures to address violations of these principles.
  2. The Editorial Board only accepts:
  • original manuscripts that are in line with the profile, scope and purpose of the journal and comply with the adopted ethical principles;
  • manuscripts that are free from legal defects or linguistic defects; plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship if any must be detected and communicated to relevant bodies (the Author’s employer, a scholarly or academic society, an associations of scientific editors or the like) as provided for in the standards adopted by Agricultural Law Review when a suspected breach of ethical principles occurs.
  1. The decision to publish or reject a submitted manuscript is taken by the Editor-in-Chief, based on compliance of the text with the objective and scope of Agricultural Law Review, satisfaction of the publication requirements, the Reviewers’ recommendations and their reviews.
  2. The Editorial Board assess the manuscript in terms of its quality and merits, the level of knowledge contained in it, the importance, relevance and topicality or timeliness of the issues raised, and their appeal to the widest possible global audience. The assessment of the manuscript is not influenced by the nationality, gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political convictions of the Authors.
  3. In the event of a conflict of interest between the Editor and the Author, the Editor will refrain from the evaluation of the submitted manuscript and forward it to another member of the Editorial Board.
  4. Prior to its submission for review, the Editorial Board check the manuscript using the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system.
  5. The Editor-in-Chief ensures the proper conduct of the review process, in particular with regard to its fairness, confidentiality, timeframe and anonymity, and acts as an intermediary between the Authors and the Reviewers.
  6. The Editorial Board will appoint at least two reviewers that are not affiliated with the Author’s institutional affiliations. In the case of interdisciplinary texts, the Editorial Board will appoint an additional reviewer, with the reviewer’s knowledge and scientific achievements used as the criterion for selection. Reviews are double-blind. Due to the subject matter of the manuscripts submitted to Agricultural Law Review, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, a member of the Scientific Committee may be appointed as reviewer.
  7. If a reviewer fails to prepare a review on time, refuses to prepare a review, or for ethical reasons cannot prepare a review of a particular manuscript, the Editorial Board will appoint a new reviewer.
  8. The Editorial Boards will only accept reviews that are honest, factual and prepared in accordance with good practice.
  9. In the event of a diametrically different evaluation of a manuscript by two reviewers, the Editorial Board may appoint a third reviewer.
  10. The Editorial Board will only accept for publication manuscripts that have received two unequivocally positive reviews.
  11. The Editorial Board guarantee confidentiality of the review process and of the personal data of authors and reviewers.
  12. In the event of a suspicion of a breach of ethics by an author or information of such a breach, the Editor-in-Chief shall initiate proceedings in accordance with the standards of conduct adopted by Agricultural Law Review.
  13. A discussion of published articles is permitted by sending a letter to the Editorial Board at ppr@amu.edu.pl

If necessary, the Editorial Board shall publish any necessary corrigenda, corrections, clarifications or information regarding the removal of an article and shall issue an apology.

The obligations of the rewievers

  1. The reviewer’s primary duty is to evaluate the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism is not acceptable. All comments, evaluations and suggestions should be indicated clearly and supported by arguments.
  2. Reviewers prepare reviews that:
  • are honest, substantive with concrete conclusions, and in accordance with good practice;
  • comply with the journal’s review procedure, i.e. reviews are to be drawn up on forms available in the relevant language versions on the Open Journal System (OJS) platform; reviews remain anonymous; reviewers write them according to the criteria contained in the review sheet;
  • are returned within the prescribed period, i.e. one month;
  • are free of charge (according to customary practice).
  1. If reviewers are unable to prepare a review, (in particular due to a conflict of interest, incompatibility of the text with their research interests and field of study, inability to produce a timely review) they shall inform the Editorial Board of this within one week of receiving a request for a review.
  2. Reviewers shall inform the Editorial Board:
  • of a conflict of interest, if any becomes apparent.
  • about detected scientific dishonesty of the author (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing, guest authorship).
  1. Reviewers must not use any data or results of the reviewed research contained in the manuscript for purposes other than preparing the review.

Reviewers should treat all texts and information relating to the review process as confidential and must not disclose them to others without the permission of the Editorial Board.

The procedure for dealing with violations of ethical pronciples

  1. The Editorial Board shall document cases of scientific dishonesty, in particular violations and infringements of copyright, as well as of ethical principles applicable to scholarship. Cases of scientific dishonesty include in particular plagiarism and self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship.
  2. In the event of a suspected breach of the ethical principles adopted by Agricultural Law Review, the rules of conduct set out below will be applied, based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): COPE flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
  3. To ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Board uses the tools of the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system. The results of the anti-plagiarism check are analysed. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected, the submitted text is rejected and the Author is informed of the basis for the rejection of the text.
  4. If reviewers report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board checks the validity of the suspicion. The Editorial Board then informs the Reviewer of the results of the check. If the validity of the suspicion is confirmed, the submitted text is rejected and the Author is informed of the basis for the rejection.
  5. If readers of Agricultural Law Review report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board checks the validity of the suspicion and informs the Author of the results of the check in response to the allegations of unreliability. The published text is withdrawn from all online platforms where Agricultural Law Review is available. The basis for the withdrawal of the text is communicated on the electronic platforms and in the printed version of the Review.
  6. In cases of confirmed plagiarism, the Editorial Board will inform the respective author’s employer or other affiliated institutions, e.g. scientific societies, associations of scientific editors.

In cases of ghost-writing and guest authorship, the text is rejected. The Editorial Board will inform the Author(s) of the decision and its basis, as well as the relevant institutions employing the Author(s) or the scientific societies with which the Author(s) is/are affiliated.

Complaints and requests

  1. The subject of a complaint may be, in particular, negligence or improper performance of tasks and duties by the Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review, its members or the Publisher.
  2. A complaint against the Editorial Board and its members should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief (roman.budzinowski@amu.edu.pl).
  3. A complaint against the Editor-in-Chief should be lodged with the Publisher (uamprawo@amu.edu.pl).
  4. A complaint against the Publisher should be lodged with the Rector of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (rectorof@amu.edu.pl).

The entity competent to handle a complaint should handle the complaint without undue delay no later than within one month of its submission, notifying the complainant of the manner in which the complaint has been handled.

 

 

Reviewers

Reviewers of 2011:
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Małgorzata Korzycka-Iwanow
Teresa Kurowska
Krystyna Stefańska
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2012:
Luis Javier Gutierrez Jerez
Beata Jeżyńska
Zdzisław Niedbała
Marcin Orlicki
Walenty Poczta
Zygmunt Truszkiewicz
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2013:
Paweł Czechowski
Josè Ramòn Sànchez Jaraba
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Aurelia Nowicka
Tadeusz Smyczyński
Aneta Suchoń
Stanisław Stachowiak
Agnieszka Szymecka-Wesołowska
Josè Martínez
Elżbieta Tomkiewcz
Zygmunt Truszkiewicz
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2014:
Francesco Adornato
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Piotr Kardas
Teresa Kurowska
Pamela Latanzi
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Àngel Martínez Gutiérrez
Johanna Monien
Jan Schürmann
Andrzej J. Szwarc
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Ilaria Trapè
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2015:
Maria Hernando Rydings
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Jesús María Martín Serrano
Angel Martínez Gutíerrez
Aneta Suchoń
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Lourdes de la Torre Martínez
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2016:
Mariagrazia Alabrese
Paweł Gała
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Beata Jeżyńska
Izabela Lipińska
José Martinez
Aneta Suchoń
Błażej Wierzbowski
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Ewa Tuora-Schwierskott
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2017:
Juan Ignacio Peinado Gracia
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Izabela Lipińska
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Trinidad Vasquez Ruano
Jan Schürmann
Giuliana Strambi
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Ilaria Trapè
Merle Welk
Błażej Wierzbowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2018:
Laura Marín Cáceres
José María Cazorla
Eloisa Cristiani
Ángel Martinez Gutíerrez
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Małgorzata Korzycka
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Nancy Malanos
Trinidad Vásquez Ruano
Arturo Garcia Sanz
Elżbieta Tomkiewicz
Paweł Wojciechowski
Andrzej Zieliński

Reviewers of 2019:
Paweł A. Blajer
Jerzy Bieluk
Marín Laura Cáceres 
Beata Jeżyńska
Ángel Gutiérrez Martínez
Monika Król 
Izabela Lipińska 
Przemysław Litwiniuk
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Adam Niewiadomski 
Radosław Pastuszko 
Giuliana Strambi
Zygmunt Truszkiewicz
Trinidad Vázquez Ruano 
Paweł Wojciechowski 
Andrzej Zieliński 

Reviewers of 2020:
Paweł A. Blajer
Laura Marín Cáceres
Juan Manuel de Faramiñán Gilbert
Fernando González Botija
Luis Javier Gutiérrez Jerez
Alina Jurcewicz
Monika A. Król
Izabela Lipińska
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Esther Muñiz Espada
Radosław Pastuszko
Przemysław Litwiniuk
Ángel Sánchez Hernández
Rosa María Vallecillo Gámez
Trinidad Vázquez Ruano
Paweł Wojciechowski
Andrzej Zieliński 

Reviewers of 2021:

Soltar Beltrán Inmaculada
Jerzy Bieluk
Paweł Blajer
Christian Busse
Irene Canfora
Laura Constantino
Jarosław Dobkowski
Adam Doliwa
Paweł Gała
Amarillide Genovese
Luis Javier Gutiérrez Jerez
Izabela Hasińska
Beata Jeżyńska
Alina Jurcewicz
Elżbieta Kremer
Monika A. Król
Daniel Eryk Lach
Izabela Lipińska
Przemysław Litwiniuk
Dorota Łobos-Kotowska
Ángel Martínez Gutiérrez
José Martínez
Joanna Mikołajczyk
Jan Muszyński
Adam Niewiadomski
Radosław Pastuszko
Eugenio Olmeda Peralta
Anna-Lena Poppe
Mariano Robles
Luigi Russo
José Ramón Sánchez Jaraba
Giuliana Strambi
Ilaria Trapè
Zygmunt Truszkiewicz
Trinidad Vázquez Ruano
Domenico Viti
Paweł Wojciechowski
Andrzej Zieliński

 

History of journal

Poland's membership in the European Union (as of 1 May 2004) justified the creation of a journal that would take into account, along the challenges of a global nature, also, or more specifically, the challenges arising from the inclusion of agriculture in the common agricultural policy. Thus, in 2007 a journal under the name “Przegląd Prawa Rolnego” (“Agricultural Law Review”) was registered (ISSN 1897-7626, eISSN 2719-7026) as a semi-annual periodical in the field of agricultural law. The intention of the founders, which has been continued until today, is not only to serve the development of the science of agricultural law and support the law-making process, but to provide at the same time assistance in solving practical problems to the agricultural administration.

The concept of the journal is oriented towards a broad approach to agricultural law that covers, besides agriculture understood in the traditional way, also legal issues concerning food, environment, rural areas and rural landscape and combines the local element with the global one. In the context of Poland's membership in the European Union, it was even necessary to take into account the experience of other EU Member states in the implementation of EU agricultural law. Moreover, in order to facilitate the exchange and access to the publications included in the “Review,” from the very beginning all articles published are accompanied with abstracts in the English language, and since the 2nd issue in 2007, also in Italian.

The journal has a national character with international elements, which can be seen in the composition of the Editorial Committee and also when looking at authors’ affiliations to various academic centres in Poland and abroad. The growing degree of internationalisation of the journal is noteworthy as it enjoys recognition and appreciation at home, in Europe and even on other continents. The Foreign Advisory Committee includes prominent representatives of agricultural law sciences from many European as well as American countries. They influence the publication policy of the journal and ensure that authors of the articles published in it come from different parts of the world. For example, of the 47 articles published in 2019 and 2020, 18 were submitted in one of the congress languages (mainly English), and their 12 authors represented foreign agricultural law science. The need for the exchange of ideas and discussions on the pages of the journal stems from the fact that similar or even the same problems (such as ensuring food security and food safety, or environmental and climate protection) are faced by agricultural lawyers in many countries worldwide.

Articles published in the “Agricultural Law Review” are quoted in Polish as well as foreign reputable scientific journals and frequently influence the decisions and activity of public administration bodies. There have been a handful of casas where in their judgments courts cited or referred to articles published in the journal.

Access to the “Agricultural Law Review” is open and its full content is available online. All issues of the journal published so far, together with the review procedure, can be found on the journal website (www.ppr.amu.edu.pl).