Editorial and Peer Review Process

STAGE 1 — SUBMISSION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The corresponding author submits the manuscript and supporting files through the official Dan-ag Manuscript Submission Form.

• The required files normally include:

• Title Page

• Blinded Manuscript

• Research Ethics Document, when applicable

• Supplementary Files, when applicable

The corresponding author receives a submission confirmation. This acknowledgment confirms receipt only and does not indicate that the manuscript has passed editorial screening.

STAGE 2 — TECHNICAL AND COMPLETENESS CHECK

The editorial office examines whether the submission is complete and suitable for formal screening. The technical check covers the following:

• Required files are present and readable

• The manuscript follows the Dan-ag Author Manuscript Template

• The title page and blinded manuscript are separate

• The blinded file does not reveal author identities

• The abstract, keywords, main sections, declarations, and references are included

• Research ethics documentation is provided when applicable

• Tables, figures, and supplementary files are properly identified

• The submission form and uploaded files contain consistent information

• A manuscript with missing or incorrectly prepared materials may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before editorial screening.

STAGE 3 — INITIAL EDITORIAL SCREENING

The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript before external peer review. The initial screening considers whether the manuscript:

• Falls within the aims and scope of Dan-ag

• Presents a sufficiently original scholarly contribution

• Has been prepared as a journal article

• Demonstrates adequate engagement with relevant scholarship

• Uses an appropriate and defensible research approach

• Reports sufficient evidence to support its conclusions

• Complies with the journal’s authorship, ethics, disclosure, and formatting requirements

• Is written clearly enough to permit scholarly evaluation

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside the journal’s scope, substantially incomplete, insufficiently original, methodologically indefensible, ethically unsupported, previously published in substantially similar form, under consideration elsewhere, or seriously inconsistent with the author guidelines.

A decision made without external review is an editorial decision and will be communicated to the corresponding author.

STAGE 4 — RESEARCH-INTEGRITY AND ETHICS ASSESSMENT

The journal may examine the manuscript for inappropriate textual overlap, duplicate or redundant publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed use of artificial intelligence, authorship concerns, data inconsistencies, image manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or other research-integrity issues.

A similarity score alone does not determine whether misconduct has occurred. The editorial team evaluates the nature, extent, attribution, and context of any identified overlap.

For studies involving human participants or identifiable human data, the editors may verify the ethics approval, exemption, institutional authorization, informed-consent procedures, participant safeguards, and data-management arrangements. The journal may request additional documentation or clarification. Review may be paused or discontinued when a serious ethical or research-integrity concern cannot be adequately resolved.

STAGE 5 — REVIEWER SELECTION

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewers are selected according to:

• Alignment of expertise with the manuscript

• Relevant research or publication experience

• Methodological competence

• Availability to complete the review

• Professional standing

• Absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest

Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors and should not have a recent supervisory, collaborative, financial, personal, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their impartiality. The journal may invite an additional reviewer when the manuscript requires specialized methodological or disciplinary expertise or when the initial reports substantially disagree. Authors do not select the final reviewers. The editorial team retains full authority over reviewer appointment.

STAGE 6 — REVIEWER INVITATION

A potential reviewer receives the manuscript title, abstract, expected review period, and sufficient information to determine whether the assignment matches the reviewer’s expertise. Before accepting, the reviewer must assess:

• Whether the manuscript is within the reviewer’s competence

• Whether sufficient time is available

• Whether a conflict of interest exists

• Whether the confidentiality requirements can be observed

A reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise, has a conflict of interest, or cannot complete the review within the agreed period should decline the invitation promptly.

STAGE 7 — DOUBLE-ANONYMOUS PEER REVIEW

Reviewers evaluate the blinded manuscript and, when relevant, its anonymized supplementary materials. The review considers:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of Dan-ag

• Originality and significance of the contribution

• Clarity of the educational problem and research purpose

• Quality of the theoretical or conceptual grounding

• Appropriateness and transparency of the methodology

• Adequacy of the ethics statement and participant protections

• Accuracy and clarity of the results

• Depth and scholarly quality of the discussion

• Alignment of conclusions and recommendations with the findings

• Appropriateness and currency of the references

• Quality of the tables, figures, and supplementary materials

• Clarity, organization, and academic presentation

• Completeness of the required declarations

Reviewers are expected to provide specific, respectful, evidence-based, and constructive comments. Personal remarks, discriminatory statements, hostile language, or demands for irrelevant citations are unacceptable. Reviewers provide recommendations to the editors. They do not independently accept or reject manuscripts.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF REVIEW

The manuscript, supplementary files, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished information obtained through peer review are confidential. Reviewers must not share the manuscript, contact the authors directly, reproduce its contents, use unpublished information for personal advantage, or involve another person in the review without prior editorial permission. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential journal materials to public generative artificial intelligence platforms or unauthorized external services. Any permitted assistance must receive prior editorial authorization and must not compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, or independent scholarly judgment.

STAGE 8 — EDITORIAL EVALUATION

After receiving the reviewer reports, the assigned editor evaluates the recommendations and the reasoning supporting them. The editor considers:

• The quality and completeness of the reviews

• Areas of agreement and disagreement

• Whether the reviewers addressed the central scholarly issues

• Whether any recommendation appears unsupported, inappropriate, or affected by bias or conflict

• Whether additional expert assessment is required

The editor is not required to follow a reviewer’s recommendation automatically. The decision must reflect an independent editorial evaluation of the manuscript and reviewer reports.

EDITORIAL DECISIONS

The journal may communicate one of the following decisions:

ACCEPT

The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject only to copyediting, formatting, verification, and author proofing.

MINOR REVISION

The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not substantially change its design, analysis, or central conclusions.

MAJOR REVISION

The manuscript requires substantial improvement in its argument, literature, methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, or presentation.

REVISE AND RESUBMIT

The manuscript shows potential but requires fundamental redevelopment before it can be reconsidered. A resubmitted manuscript may undergo a new round of editorial screening and peer review. An invitation to resubmit does not guarantee acceptance.

DECLINE

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its present form or cannot be adequately resolved through revision.

RETURNED BEFORE REVIEW

The submission is incomplete, technically noncompliant, insufficiently anonymized, or missing necessary documentation. The author may be allowed to correct and resubmit the materials.

STAGE 9 — AUTHOR REVISION

When revision is invited, the corresponding author should submit:

• A revised blinded manuscript

• A detailed point-by-point response to the editor and reviewers

• A version showing or highlighting the changes, when requested

• Updated declarations, ethics documents, or supplementary files when applicable

The response document should present each editorial or reviewer comment, explain the action taken, and identify where the revision appears in the manuscript. When the authors disagree with a recommendation, they should respond respectfully and provide a clear scholarly justification. All authors must approve the revised manuscript before resubmission.

STAGE 10 — RE-EVALUATION

A minor revision may be evaluated by the assigned editor without being returned to the original reviewers.

A major revision will normally be returned to one or more of the original reviewers when available. The journal may appoint a new reviewer when the original reviewer is unavailable or additional expertise is needed.

The revised manuscript may undergo further rounds of revision when necessary.

Failure to address substantial concerns or provide an adequate response may result in the manuscript being declined.

STAGE 11 — FINAL DECISION

The Editor-in-Chief or another authorized editor makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, ethical requirements, and journal standards.

Acceptance becomes final only when the authors receive an official written acceptance notice from Dan-ag.

Informal comments, encouraging reviewer reports, requests for revision, or conditional recommendations do not constitute acceptance.

STAGE 12 — PRODUCTION AND AUTHOR PROOFING

An accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, language review, reference checking, formatting, metadata preparation, and digital production. The corresponding author receives the edited manuscript or publication proof for final checking. Proof corrections should normally be limited to typographical errors, formatting problems, factual inaccuracies introduced during production, and essential clarifications. Substantial changes to the study, results, authorship, or conclusions after acceptance require editorial approval and may result in renewed review. The article is published only after the required author approval and production checks have been completed.

EDITORIAL STATISTICS

Dan-ag is beginning its digital relaunch with Volume 5, Issue 1. A reliable rejection rate and other editorial-performance statistics are therefore not yet available. The journal will begin reporting aggregate editorial statistics after completing a sufficient publication cycle. These may include the number of manuscripts received, desk-rejection rate, overall rejection rate, and median processing times. Statistics will be based on completed editorial records and will be reported without identifying authors, reviewers, or unpublished manuscripts.