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)
- Single anonymized. Reviewers know the authors; authors do not know reviewers. There is no manuscript anonymization step (unlike a double-anonymous journal).
- 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.
- External review. Suitable submissions go to a minimum of two expert reviewers for independent assessment of scientific quality.
- Decision. Accept / minor or major revision / reject — taken by the journal's editors.
- 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— peer-review model, reviewer count, editor decision, rapid review for Perspectives
