Phenotypic Diversity Assessment of Maize (Zea mays spp.) Germplasm from Azerbaijan

As of 2026, our journal has adopted a continuous publication model. Under this publishing system, articles are published online immediately after the completion of the peer-review process and editorial procedures, without waiting for the compilation of a specific issue.
The continuous publication model aims to ensure faster dissemination of scientific knowledge, reduce publication delays, and enhance the visibility and citation potential of published articles. The journal’s annual publication volume remains unchanged, and all articles published throughout the year are archived under the corresponding annual volume.
This publication model is fully compliant with international academic publishing standards and does not involve any changes in the peer-review process, DOI assignment, editorial policies, or indexing criteria.

Author Guidelines

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors and Associate Editors
1. Editors and Associate Editors are responsible for evaluating submitted manuscripts based on their significance, originality, academic rigor, clarity, and alignment with the journal's scope. Upon initial review, if a decision is made to reject a manuscript, they must provide the authors with a clear and justified explanation for the rejection.
2. Editors must inform authors within 30 days whether their submission will proceed to peer review. The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Associate Editors.
3. All submissions must undergo an initial plagiarism screening. Manuscripts found to contain potential plagiarism must be rejected at this stage.
4. Unpublished data, methodologies, or findings from submitted manuscripts must not be used by editors, reviewers, or any other party without the explicit written consent of the authors.
5. Manuscripts must be assessed solely on their intellectual merit, without bias related to the authors' social, cultural, economic, or religious backgrounds.
6. Confidentiality must be maintained throughout the review process; submitted manuscripts should only be shared with the authors, reviewers, Associate Editors, and the publisher.
7. Editors must assign Section Editors with relevant expertise and ensure that manuscripts are sent to qualified reviewers with appropriate knowledge in the subject area.
8. Reviewers should be encouraged to conduct evaluations impartially, scientifically, and objectively.
9. Editors are responsible for maintaining and updating a diverse pool of reviewers who demonstrate objectivity, adhere to deadlines, provide constructive feedback, and comply with ethical guidelines.
10. If a conflict of interest is identified between a submitted manuscript and an author, reviewer, or institution, the manuscript must be withdrawn from further consideration.
11. The final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor-in-Chief, who must base this decision on the work’s originality, scholarly contribution, and overall quality.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. Competence and Timeliness
Reviewers who determine they lack sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript or are unable to complete the assessment promptly must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
2. Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. They shall not disclose any part of the work to unauthorized individuals or discuss its contents without the editor’s explicit permission.
3. Avoidance of Privileged Information
Privileged information or ideas obtained during peer review must remain confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers are prohibited from utilizing unpublished data from the manuscript for their research.
4. Objectivity and Constructive Criticism
Evaluations should be conducted objectively, with critiques based on scholarly merit rather than personal bias. Reviewers must support their assessments with clear, evidence-based reasoning.
5. Identification of Overlapping Publications
If reviewers identify significant similarities between the submitted manuscript and previously published works, they must immediately notify the editor.
6. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts where competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors could compromise impartiality.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
1. Originality and Scope
Submissions to Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences must represent original research within the journal’s scope. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is prohibited.
2. Data Integrity and Accessibility
Authors must ensure that data collection adheres to ethical guidelines. Upon request, raw data underlying the study must be provided to the editor, reviewers, or publisher.
3. Compliance with Publication Ethics
Manuscripts must not violate scientific ethics, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, salami slicing, improper authorship attribution, or non-compliance with ethical standards for animal/human research.
4. Accuracy and Attribution
Submitted works must include comprehensive references and avoid fraudulent claims. Unpublished theses or proprietary data may not be cited without explicit permission.
5. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Authors must declare all funding sources, institutional affiliations, or potential conflicts of interest related to their research.
6. Authorship Criteria
All individuals who contributed significantly to the study’s conception, execution, or analysis must be listed as co-authors. Minor contributors may be acknowledged separately.
7. Corresponding Author Responsibilities
The designated corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and must ensure all co-authors approve manuscript revisions and corrections.
8. Post-Publication Corrections
Authors are obligated to promptly notify the journal of significant errors in published works and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions.
9. Collective Accountability
All authors share responsibility for the manuscript’s content. Non-contributors must not be included as authors, and significant contributors must not be omitted.

Violations of Scientific Research and Publication Ethics
1. Falsification
Fabricating or reporting research data without actual experimentation or scientific investigation constitutes falsification. This includes presenting fictitious results as empirically derived findings.
2. Distortion
Distortion involves manipulating research records, methodologies, or data to misrepresent experimental processes or outcomes. This includes selectively omitting data inconsistent with the research hypothesis, altering results to align with theoretical expectations, or tailoring findings to suit the interests of funding entities.
3. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the unauthorized appropriation of others' intellectual work, including ideas, methods, data, text, or figures, without proper attribution, thereby violating academic integrity and intellectual property rights.
4. Fraud
Fraudulent practices encompass generating fabricated data, falsifying research outcomes, or misrepresenting incomplete studies as finalized work for publication or presentation.
5. Duplicate Publication (Redundant Publication)
Republishing previously reported research in another journal without prior editorial approval constitutes duplicate publication, undermining the originality and transparency of scholarly work.
6. Salami Slicing (Data Fragmentation)
Inappropriately segmenting a single coherent study into multiple publications to artificially increase output, particularly for academic promotions, without cross-referencing, violates research integrity and misrepresents scientific contributions.
7. Unethical Authorship Practices
Unfair authorship includes:
• Listing individuals who did not contribute meaningfully (gift authorship),
• Excluding legitimate contributors (ghost authorship),
• Unjustified alterations to author order,
• Removing contributors' names post-submission, or
• Coercively including non-contributing individuals due to their influence.
8. Additional Ethical Violations
Other breaches include:
• Failing to disclose funding sources or institutional support,
• Non-compliance with ethical guidelines for human/animal research,
• Violating patient confidentiality in medical publications,
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest in peer review (e.g., reviewing one’s work),
• Premature disclosure of unpublished data,
• Misusing research resources or facilities,
• Baseless accusations of ethical misconduct.