General information

Bulletin of Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokychaiev.
The series “Crop production, selection and seed production, fruit and vegetable growing”

Vìsn. HNAU, Ser. Rosl. sel. nasìnn. plodoovočìvn.

ISSN 2413-7642

РЕЄСТР наукових фахових видань України

Certificate of state registration – KV № 261 dated March 6, 2015

Publisher: Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokuchaiev

Branch and issues

Bulletin of Kharkiv National Agrarian University named after V.V. Dokychaiev.The series “Crop production, selection and seed production, fruit and vegetable growing” is a collection of scientific works, which contains research results and review articles on fundamental and applied crop production, formation of high quality crops of cereals, legumes, industrial crops and fodder grasses, fruits and vegetables.

The collection is intended for teachers, researchers, graduate students and students who specialize in relevant or related fields of science.

The collection is included in the list of professional publications in which you can publish the main results of dissertations for the degree of Doctor and Candidate of Agricultural Sciences.

Articles written in Ukrainian, Russian or English in accordance with the rules for authors and received positive recommendations from reviewers are accepted for publication.

The planned frequency of the collection edition is 2 times a year.

Reviewing Process

The editor and editorial board use a privacy policy regarding information about accepted manuscripts to all persons except authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific advisers, and the publisher.

All scientific papers are published with the written consent of the author. Editors, reviewers, and scientific advisers pledge from reviewing manuscripts in the case of conflicts of interests due to competitive, joint, and other interactions and relationships with authors, companies, and possibly with other organizations related to the manuscript.

The Editorial Board undertakes to accept appropriate measures in the case of ethical claims relating to the manuscripts considered or published.

The articles are published after receiving positive review from two reviewers. Members of the editorial board of the journal are involved in the review process – specialists in the given filled to which the submission belongs, as well as third-party researchers whose interests coincide with the topic of the work.

Reviewers receive encoded articles, and the author does not reveal the reviewer, the first owes evaluate the article from the point of results originality, methods adequacy and correspondence of the analysis the conclusions rejections, and take decisions to accept the article without changes, after removing remarks.

After reviewing the materials the reviewer may, , make one of the following decisions:

  • publish as it is;
  • publish with minor changes;
  • send for reconsideration (if significant changes are required);
    refuse (if significant processing is required, but the author may re-submit the corrected material);
  • refuse to send the article a second time without permission (if the material has fundamental shortcomings, contains plagiarism or does not correspond to the topic of the journal).
  • The final decision is take by the editorial board of the journal.
  • The results of the reviewing, remarks and recommendations are sent to the author by e-mail.
  • The process of reviewing the article lasts no more than 3 months.
  • The editors reserve the right to make minor literary wording of texts and abbreviations while preserving the author’s style.

Common reasons for rejection

You may receive the article resection  if:

  • the article is poorly or incorrectly structured;
  • the article is not detailed enough for readers to understand fully the analysis proposed by the authors;
  • the article has no scientific novelty;
  • the article does not clearly identify what part of the conclusions is new to the science, in contrast to what was already known;
  •  the insufficient number of relevant references to literary sources is in the article;
  • the article contains theories, concepts or conclusions that are not fully supported by the given arguments or information;
  • the article does not provide a sufficiently detailed description of methods and materials that would allow other scientists to repeat the experiment;
  • there are no clear descriptions or explanations in the article: tested hypotheses, descriptions of experiments, examples of statistical or experimental samples;
  • the article does not sufficiently describe the experiments, or mistakes, or statistical analysis is not given;
  • the article has low language quality.

Recurring  the article and responding to the reviewer’s comments

When recurring your document and responding to reviewers’ comments:

  • Pay attention to all comments given by the editor and reviewer;
  • Describe all changes in your article in the response letter;
  • Perform all additional experiments or tests recommended by the reviewer (if you are sure that these changes will not make your article better, give a detailed justification why you think so);
  • In the response letter, describe separately all the points in which you agree with the reviewer and in which you do not agree;
  • Provide a polite and scientific justification for all points with which you do not agree;
  • Indicate clearly any changes you have made to your document (highlight by color);
  • Return the reviewed manuscript and return letter within the deadline set by the editor.
    Refusal to publish
  • The author has the right to choose another journal in cases if:
  • the editor has replied that the subject of the work does not correspond to the subject of the journal,
  • the editor refuses the manuscript without the right to re-submit it,
  • the manuscript has been rejected even after answering all the corrections and comments of the reviewer,
  • rejection has been from two received.

If the process of reviewing a manuscript takes much longer time than it should be for this journal and the editors cannot speed up the process, then it is very important to inform the editors that you are retracting the manuscript from the editors before submitting it to another journal.

Ethics of publications and dishonest practice in the connection with publications

Principles of professional ethics in the activities of the editor and publisher

In his activity, the editor is responsible for the publication of author’s works, which requires compliance with the following fundamental principles:

  • When taking the decision to publish, the editor of the scientific journal is guided by the reliability of the data and the scientific significance of the work.
  • The editor must evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status, or political preferences.
  • Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used for personal purposes or passed to the third parties without the written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained during editing and related to possible benefits should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
  • The editor should not allow information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
  • The editor, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims concerning the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, as well as to take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights if a conflict situation is identified.

Ethical principles in the activities of the reviewer

The reviewer carries out scientific examination of the author’s materials, as a result of which his actions must be impartial, which is to comply with the following principles:

  • The manuscript received for reviewing should be considered a confidential document that cannot be passed for revision or discussion to the third parties who do not have the authority to do so.
  • The reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the results of the study. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
  • Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts should not be used by the reviewer for personal purposes.
  • A reviewer who, in his opinion, does not have sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example in the case of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should notify the editors requesting to exclude from him the revision process.

Principles to be guided by the author of scientific publications
The author (or group of authors) is aware that he is primarily responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, which involves compliance with the following principles:

  • The authors of the article must provide reliable research results. False or falsified allegations in advance are unacceptable.
  • Authors must ensure that the results of the study presented in the submitted manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including unquoted quotations, paraphrases or assignment of rights to the results of other people’s research, is unethical and unacceptable.
  • It is necessary to recognize the contribution of all persons who in one way or another have influenced the course of the study. Particularly , the article should provide references to the works that were relevant during the study.
  • Authors should not submit a manuscript that has been submitted to another journal to the editors of the journal and is under consideration, as well as an article already published in another edition.
  • The co-authors of the article should be indicated as all persons who have made a significant contribution to the study. It is unacceptable to indicate among the co-authors persons who have not participated in the study.
  • If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, he must inform the journal as soon as possible.

Open access policy

The editorial board practices a policy of immediate open access to published content, supporting the principles of free dissemination of scientific information and global exchange of knowledge for the general social progress. Open access according to the Budapest Open Access Declaration (2002) means free, fast, permanent, full-text real-time access to peer-reviewed journal materials, which is implemented for any user in the global information network. The publishing house publishes articles under the  Creative Commons Attribution  (CC BY 3.0), which allows copying, distributing, demonstrating, modifying and developing their own works based on the above materials, if the references are provided to the original work


Archiving allows you to collect, store and share all journal articles on the site securely.

Check for plagiarism

We check the submitted texts for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected, the article is rejected.

Assigning a Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

 DOI number will be gradually assigned to archival articles.