An international journal on research and development in soil tillage and field traffic, and their relationship with land use, crop production and the environment. Published in collaboration with the International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO)
Peer Review Policy Soil and Tillage Research (STILL)
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of STILL and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, are outside the aims and scope of the journal, or have poor grammar or English language. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: • Is original? • Is methodologically sound? • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines? • Has results clearly presented and that support conclusions? • Correctly referenced previous relevant work?
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not the focus of the peer review process. If referee reports are contradictory, the Editor is entitled to make a final decision without further review.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 3 months. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. All our referees sign a conflict of interest statement. Revised manuscripts should be returned to the editor within 3 months. Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees. The Editor is entitled to modify suggestions/conclusions of reviewer's reports, given scientific reasons for such modifications.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a Referee for STILL
If you are not currently a referee but would like to be added to the list of referees for this journal, please contact the editorial office. The benefits of refereeing for STILL include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to be acknowledged in an annual statement in the journal. You may also be able to cite your work for STILL as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.
