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

1. Single anonymized. Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know reviewers. There is no

manuscript anonymization step (unlike a double-anonymous journal).

1. 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.

1. External review. Suitable submissions go to a minimum of two expert reviewers for

independent assessment of scientific quality.

1. Decision. Accept / minor or major revision / reject — taken by the journal's editors.
2. 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

• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — peer-review model, reviewer count, editor decision, rapid review for Perspectives