---
name: agsy-review-process
description: Use to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
---

# 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.
Verify volatile specifics on the official page (待核实).

## 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 (verify current process)

1. **Single anonymized.** Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know reviewers. There is no
   manuscript anonymization step (unlike a double-anonymous journal).
2. **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.
3. **External review.** Suitable submissions go to a **minimum of two** expert reviewers for
   independent assessment of scientific quality.
4. **Decision.** Accept / minor or major revision / reject — taken by the **journal's editors**.
5. **Perspective rapid review.** **Perspective** articles undergo a **rapid** review process for a short
   submission-to-publication time.

## 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).

## 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)

## 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`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — peer-review model, reviewer count, editor decision, rapid review for Perspectives