Editorial Policies

ASA, CSSA, SSSA publications acknowledge and value all dimensions of diversity in our members’ and employees’ interests. Therefore, we welcome into our societies and encourage the participation of all individuals regardless of age, gender, gender identity, race, cultural background, religion, physical ability, sexual orientation, professional status, military status, geographic location and all other characteristics that make our members unique. For more information, please see the ACSESS Diversity and Inclusion Statement here.

The aim of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA journals is to disseminate original research; we therefore require that all submissions be original contributions. To avoid unnecessary delays, authors should disclose any potential redundant publication or dissemination in their cover letter to the journal editor.

All ASA, CSSA, SSSA journals will consider for publication original work that the author has not previously published and that is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Oral or poster presentations, meeting abstracts, non-peer reviewed conference proceedings, white papers, papers posted on not-for-profit preprint servers, and non-peer reviewed student theses or dissertations are examples of works not considered previously published for these purposes.

ASA, CSSA, SSSA journals may also consider for publication a working paper or presentation that has been posted on an author’s personal or home institution’s website and that is not connected to a commercial site. When the paper is published, authors may provide an electronic link from that site to the published article online.

Posting of preprints to a not-for-profit preprint server is considered acceptable but requires citing of the preprint. You may submit to a preprint server any time prior to acceptance. Please note if you have posted to a preprint server prior to submission. Upon publication in the journal, authors must add a link from the preprint to the published paper via its DOI.

Other exceptions to postings or publications may be considered at the journal editor’s discretion.

Accepting or Rejecting a Paper

The policy of the Societies is that no scientific paper may be published in any of their journals, books, or other scholarly publications unless two unbiased professional scientists agree the paper is acceptable.  The Editor may choose to release a paper prior to review at their discretion; examples include, but are not limited to, if the paper is outside the scope of the journal or if language usage problems inhibit the scientific review. More likely, those who agree to the decision will be a combination of one or more volunteer reviewers, one of the Journal’s associate editors, and (depending on the journal) also a technical editor or the Journal’s editor. All scientist–editor members of editorial boards are expected to exercise professional judgment, not simply count ballots cast by volunteer reviewers.

Obtaining Anonymous Reviews

The Societies have a policy of keeping the reviewers anonymous from authors and from each other. Some of the journals also keep the names of the authors anonymous from the reviewers. Occasionally, a reviewer will ask an editorial board member to reveal his or her name to the author. Such requests must always be declined. Similarly, remove any reviewer (contact) information, electronic or otherwise, from reviews before forwarding them to the author(s). There is, of course, no way that the Societies can (or should) prevent that reviewer from contacting the author(s) after the paper is published and saying, “I want you to know that I was a reviewer for your paper.”

Policy for Appeal of Manuscript Review

The Societies as a scientific publisher must make judgments about the correctness and relevance of manuscripts under consideration for publication. The Societies rely on qualified volunteers to review manuscripts and to serve on editorial boards to make these editorial decisions and to provide feedback to authors. In the vast majority of cases, this process works smoothly. Should an author feel that the process was implemented incorrectly or that a review was biased, or poorly done, the author should first inform the Editor of that journal, and attempt to resolve the concern at that level. If the concern is not resolved, the author may appeal the decision to the Editors-in-Chief. Their decision will be final.

All volunteers involved in evaluating a manuscript will be assumed to have acted in an appropriate and professional manner unless and until it is demonstrated to be otherwise. The Societies’ volunteers will keep all those involved in an appeal informed of the process, and will always be cognizant that such investigations are difficult for all concerned, and will use their best judgment regarding tact and confidentiality.

The Data Policy of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA expects the storage and availability of data necessary to understand and evaluate phenomena reported in our publications. Data should be stored or archived in domain repositories that are recognized widely and available to the community. Archiving should follow best management practices for metadata and data curation. Data not stored in such a repository should be available upon request to the authors.

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA collaborates with Dryad Digital Repository. Authors may choose to host their article-associated data in Dryad at no cost. You can find more information on our Dryad Data Repository page.

Additional guidance or requirements may be provided by individual journals.

To allow greater accessibility to our sciences by color-blinded individuals, we require the following guidelines be implemented when generating color figures.

• Avoid unnecessary color: Grayscale generally provides a more faithful representation when a single quantity is being displayed.
• Avoid troublesome color combinations: Greens, reds, browns, and oranges.
• Use green/magenta color combinations instead of green/red combinations.
• Use separate monochrome images for the different color channels if no suitable color combination can be found.
• For line drawings that require color, use redundant coding by adding different textures, shapes, or line types to the colors across figures.

The following sites are useful resources for illustration creation:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19160-7

https://www.ascb.org/science-news/how-to-make-scientific-figures-accessible-to-readers-with-color-blindness

https://towardsdatascience.com/two-simple-steps-to-create-colorblind-friendly-data-visualizations-2ed781a167ec

https://jfly.uni-koeln.de/color/index.html

Statement of Ethics for Authors

As authors, we seek to advance knowledge in the sciences associated with our journals. We uphold fair and professional conduct in relation to our manuscripts and papers. Contributors to publications of the Societies, whether members or not, agree to the following ethical guidelines, for the advancement of our sciences and our scientific communities:

1. Uphold the highest standards of scientific investigation and professional comportment, and an uncompromising commitment to the advancement of knowledge.
2. Honor the rights and accomplishments of others and properly credit the work and ideas of others.
3. Strive to avoid conflicts of interest.
4. Demonstrate social responsibility in scientific and professional practice, by considering whom their scientific and professional activities benefit, and whom they neglect.
5. Provide honest and impartial advice on subjects about which they are informed and qualified.
6. As mentors of the next generation of scientific and professional leaders, strive to instill these ethical standards in students at all educational levels.

Scientific Misconduct

The journal editorial boards take claims of scientific misconduct seriously and investigate each allegation. The journal reserves the right to contact the authors’ institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies. The journal also reserves the right to halt peer review and publication until any investigation is complete.

The journal editor, editorial board, and editor(s)-in-chief will work with authors of previously published articles to rectify any issues that may emerge. These may include issuing an expression of concern or a retraction of the published article.

We encourage authors to follow the guidelines for good research practice. We do not consider cases of unintentional error to be misconduct; if a small portion of the publication contains an honest error, we will publish an erratum. Any questions or concerns should be addressed to the journal editor or editor(s)-in-chief.

Errata

Errata may be used by the authors of a paper to correct errors and omissions that affect the integrity of the version of record that are identified after publication. All additions and corrections are subject to editorial approval and must be approved by all coauthors before submission; corrections of minor errors or omissions will not be published. All errata requests are sent to the journal’s managing editor.

Conflict of Interest

Conflicts of interest in publishing can be defined as conditions in which an individual holds conflicting or competing interests that could bias editorial decisions. Conflicts of interest may be only potential or perceived, or they may be factual. Personal, political, financial, academic, or religious considerations can affect objectivity in numerous ways.

Editors, authors, and reviewers must agree to this policy, and must disclose any conflict-of-interest or competing interest on our online form attached to the electronic submission system. It is also important to recognize that an Editor and/or reviewer can be impartial while nonetheless being in conflict of interest. Since the perception of conflict of interest is detrimental to a journal’s reputation, avoiding even the perception of conflict of interest should be a priority.

One challenge for journals is to recognize the potential for biases arising from conflicts of interest in the publishing process and to take appropriate action when biases are likely. Some specific types of conflict of interest are mentioned below.

Personal conflicts. Editors should avoid making decisions on manuscripts that conflict with their own interest, such as those submitted from their department or by research collaborators, co-authors, competitors, or those addressing an issue in which they stand to gain financially (e.g., stock in a company whose product is discussed in the article), within the past three years. If there is a perceived or actual conflict of interest, editors should delegate handling of any decision to other editors with decision-making responsibility. Also, editors should submit their own manuscripts to the journal only if full masking of the process can be ensured (e.g., anonymity of the peer reviewers and lack of access to records of their own manuscript). Editorials and/or opinion pieces are an exception to this rule.

Financial conflicts. The most evident type of potential conflict of financial interest arises when an individual or organization may benefit financially from a decision to publish or to reject a manuscript. Financial conflicts may include salary, grants from a company with an interest in the results, honoraria, stock or equity interests, and intellectual property rights (patents, royalties, and copyrights). Some examples of potential direct and indirect financial conflicts of interest that should be avoided are given below.

• Direct. An editor, author, or reviewer is reporting or considering a study involving a specific commercial product while he or she holds equity positions or stock options in the company making the product, and thus has the potential to realize direct financial gain if the assessment is favorable.
• Direct. A reviewer gains key knowledge by evaluating a competing research team’s work and uses it prior to the publication of the work but does not cite it in his/her own patent application.
• Indirect. An individual involved in the publication process is employed by an organization that would obtain some advantage from a favorable product-related publication or may receive compensation if a product does well as a result of a favorable report published in the journal. Similarly, an author of an editorial commenting on the importance of a research article may minimize positive findings if he or she has been a consultant to a company selling competing products.
• Indirect. When an investigator studies the product of a commercial enterprise from which the investigator has received monies previously (e.g., consulting fees, honoraria, or speaking fees), the situation differs slightly. In such case, there is no direct relationship between the evaluation and a personal gain the investigator may anticipate. Nevertheless, previously received payments could conceivably influence the researcher’s opinion; therefore, they must be regarded as a potential conflict of interest and should be disclosed.

Nonfinancial conflicts. Other nonfinancial conflicts of interest should also be avoided or disclosed. Some of these include personal, political, academic, and religious conflicts. Examples are listed below.

• A reviewer evaluating a manuscript reporting research results similar to results he or she is preparing to submit for publication might be tempted to delay the review until his or her manuscript is accepted or might be unduly influenced by the concepts or hypotheses in his or her ongoing and unpublished research.
• A reviewer with strong feelings on a controversial topic might be partial to or biased against a manuscript on the topic and want to publish or reject it regardless of scientific merit.
• An editor chairing a department might struggle to reach an objective decision about a manuscript submitted by a member of his or her faculty because of his or her commitment to the academic advancement of those researchers.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Society journals require everyone involved in the publication process (i.e., editors, reviewers, editorial board members, editorial staff, and authors) to agree to a general conflict of interest statement. The intent of disclosure is to allow others to make an informed decision about the existence and impact of potential conflicts of interest or bias, including the necessity for recusal or disqualification under extraordinary circumstances. Editors are better equipped to make informed decisions of potential biases if they have full knowledge of all the circumstances, and readers and reviewers have more information to interpret the work when there is a public disclosure. However, mandatory disclosure of actual or perceived conflicts may not allow a manuscript to be judged solely on its scientific merits and may introduce prejudice. Editors and reviewers must be aware of this possibility.

Author disclosures. Authors are required to disclose all personal, financial (in excess of $1000), and other relationships they may have with the manufacturer of any product mentioned in the manuscript or with the manufacturers of competing products. Society journals will keep disclosed conflicts of interest confidential during the peer review process. This allows the Editor to consider the potential conflicts after the scientific merit is assessed.

Reviewer disclosures. In most instances, when a reviewer indicates a conflict of interest, or competing interests, the editor will request that reviewer declines to comment on the manuscript. However, if a reviewer is a colleague of the author or the Editor, but believes that he or she can provide an objective review, the Editor may allow the practice. Reviewers will be asked to agree to the same conflict of interest disclosure form as authors and editors do.

Obtaining Consent to Submit

The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to coauthorship of it.

Use of Human Subjects or Animals in Research

Only investigations that have followed high standards for the humane care and use of animals in research will be reported in Society journals. Authors of manuscripts describing research involving human subjects or animal experimentation must obtain review and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), as appropriate, prior to manuscript submission. Authors of manuscripts that describe multisite research must obtain approval from each institution’s IRB or IACUC, as appropriate. Documentation of IRB or IACUC status must be made available upon request. In the event that institutional review boards or committees do not exist, the authors must ensure that their research is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013 (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) or other recognized international standards (U.S. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects; European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice; or the Ethical Review Methods for Biomedical Research Involving Humans adopted by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China). A statement of IRB or IACUC approval or waiver (and reason for waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki must be included in the Materials and Methods section.

The following U.S. Government principles, outlined in Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, should be adhered to for animal research:

1. The transportation, care, and use of animals should be in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and other applicable Federal laws, guidelines, and policies.
2. Procedures involving animals should be designed and performed with due consideration of their relevance to human or animal health, the advancement of knowledge, or the good of society.
3. The animals selected for a procedure should be of an appropriate species and quality and the minimum number required to obtain valid results. Methods such as mathematical models, computer simulation, and in vitro biological systems should be considered.    
4. Proper use of animals, including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress, and pain when consistent with sound scientific practices, is imperative. Unless the contrary is established, investigators should consider that procedures that cause pain or distress in human beings may cause pain or distress in other animals.
5. Procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia. Surgical or other painful procedures should not be performed on unanesthetized animals paralyzed by chemical agents.

Informed Consent

All individuals have rights that are not to be infringed. For example, individual participants in studies have the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken.

Hence, it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants who were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. Complete guidelines for informed consent can be found in section 46.117 of Federal Regulations document 45 CFR 46, Human Subjects Research.

Most metrics of scholarly performance, including the Journal Impact Factor, are based on citations to published articles. This may generate strong temptation to inappropriately increase citations, something that is referred to as citation manipulation or citation gaming. Citation manipulation refers to any systematic practice that inappropriately pressures authors to cite material with the primary goal of boosting citation rates. The Societies consider all such practices unacceptable. The following forms of citation manipulation (for the purpose of increasing citation rates) are known to exist:

• Coercion. At some point during the peer-review process, editors (or anyone else involved in the process) request that authors add citations from their own journal (or a journal from the same publisher).
• Editorials. Editors write editorials in which a disproportionate number of articles from their own journal are cited.
• Reviewers. Reviewers suggesting citations of their own work.
• Self-citation. Authors cite disproportionately large numbers of their own articles in all or most of their publications.
• Citation swapping. A group of colleagues (perhaps students or research associates of a particular researcher) agrees to preferentially and regularly cite each other’s articles in all or most of their publications.

Anybody involved in the peer-review process can become a party to citation manipulation. Therefore, it is every participant’s responsibility to judge how reasonable such requests are. If citation manipulation is suspected, it should be brought to the attention of the Editor, Publisher, or other accountable party.

Do not duplicate material from others’ manuscripts or papers or from your own published papers. If similar information is needed in the Materials and Methods section, summarize, and cite the earlier paper rather than repeating verbatim. Be aware that all papers are screened for plagiarism. Our software product evaluates papers to find significant duplication. If there appears to be major repetition from other sources, we will forward those papers to the Journal Editor for further evaluation and action if warranted.

Maps published in any ASA, CSSA, or SSSA publications are at the discretion of the author(s). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA do not endorse any maps and are neutral to any political claims that published maps may present.

Opinions and conclusions expressed by authors are their own and are not considered as those of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, or Soil Science Society of America, its staff, its members, or its advertisers. Advertisements in this publication do not constitute an endorsement of the product. Trade names are sometimes mentioned in papers published in this journal. No endorsement of those products by the publisher is intended, nor is any criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.

Authors must declare the use of generative AI (GAI) in scientific writing upon submission of the paper. The following guidance refers only to the writing process, and not to the use of GAI tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process:

• Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should only be used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.

• Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies may be used as a companion to their writing process, not a replacement.

• The technology must be applied with human oversight and control. Authors should carefully review and edit the result, as GAI can generate output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

• Authors must not list or cite GAI and GAI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author on the manuscript. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans.

• Authors must not use GAI and GAI-assisted technologies to create, alter, or manipulate original research data and results.

• If the usage is in doubt, the final decision regarding the appropriate and permissible use of a GAI tool in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editorial board.

The use of GAI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing must be declared by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first submitted. The statement will appear in the published work and should be placed in a new section before the references list. Authors should declare all AI technology used, including the name of the application and version, as well as include how they personally reviewed and verified the AI-generated content. Authors must also disclose use of AI technologies upon submission to our journals. Transparency is essential to our commitment to ethical science and integrity. An example:

• Title of section: DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES 

• Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE, VERSION X.0] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.

The declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools, such as tools used to check basic grammar, spelling and references. If you have nothing to disclose, you do not need to add a statement.

Please familiarize yourself with Wiley’s author policy on the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, which can be found in https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html#22.  Authors should periodically revisit Wiley’s AI Technology policies page to ensure continued compliance.

For our reviewers: When a researcher is invited to review a paper, the manuscript must be treated as confidential material. In order to protect our authors’ rights as well as the confidentiality of their research, our journals do not allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies by reviewers during the peer review process. Reviewers should never upload another author’s manuscript or any portion of the manuscript to a generative AI tool. Please be aware that we are regularly evaluating Gen-AI tools and may revise this policy in the future. Additional guidance can be found here.

For our editors: The peer review process is fundamental to scientific progress, and ASA-CSSA-SSSA is dedicated to conducting it with the utmost integrity. All manuscripts received by our journals for peer review must be treated as confidential material. In order to protect our authors’ rights as well as the confidentiality of their research, our journals do not allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies by editors during the manuscript evaluation process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. If an editor suspects that an author or a reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the ASA-CSSA-SSSA publications office.