About the Journal

Aims & Scope

The GJAE is a double blind peer reviewed scientific journal for articles in the field of agricultural and food economics and related disciplines. First published in 1952, the GJAE succeeds the German "Agrarwirtschaft", upholding the tradition of this long-established journal. As it targets both basic and applied research activities, the GJAE is interesting for academic scientists, teaching staff and scientifically interested staff of public authorities, business and industry. As an Open Access Journal the GJAE reaches an international readership.

The journal's archive can be found at: https://www.gjae-online.de/past-issues/.

Open-access policy

The German Journal of Agricultural Economics is an open-access journal. This means all content can be accessed immediately after publication free of charge. Authors retain copyright and all content can be reused unrestrictedly according to the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Preprints (pre-review manuscripts), post prints (authors accepted manuscripts, AAM), and the version of record (VoR) can be deposited without restrictions.

Please find further information on license and copyright on the page Submissions.

Indexing

The journals is included in Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, Current Contents Agriculture, Biology & Environmental Sciences, and Essential Science Indicators

Peer review

  1. Step 1: the manuscript undergoes a formal check by the editorial team, including a plagiarism check.
  2. Step 2: the editor in charge will evaluate whether the manuscript fits within the specific journal’s publishing profile and meets basic standards of quality. Desk rejections are based on dual control among the editors.
  3. Step 3: If the manuscript passes the preliminary editorial review, it is sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in their field and familiar with the actual topic. The review is double-blind, i.e., anonymity of reviewers and authors is ensured.. Peers and editors are not remunerated for their work on behalf of the journal. In case of diverging reviewer recommendations the editor in charge may consult editorial board members or further reviewers.
  4. Step 4: The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection will be made by the editor in charge. The first decision can be expected 3 months after manuscript submission, unless the process of recruiting qualified reviewers would be delayed.

Data and other underlying material

Research output is not just text (journal articles, books, or conference papers), but also data, model code, software, etc. All of these outputs deserve acknowledgement and should be as open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) as possible. All materials (data, code, etc.) supporting the findings presented in submitted manuscripts should therefore be deposited in a FAIR-aligned public repository. A registry to find suitable data repositories is re3data.org. Whenever no ethical or legal constrains apply, unrestricted access to all underlying data and other material should be provided. In addition, data (and other material underpinning the findings) need to be cited in the text and the respective reference must be included in the manuscript’s reference list. Please refer to the data citation principles of FORCE11 or the FORCE11 software citation principles, respectively. Every author should include a data availability statement in their manuscript describing how the data underlying the findings of their contribution can be accessed and reused. If the submission is not based on data or the data it is based on is restricted (third-party data, legal or ethical constraints), this should be explained in the data availability statement, too. Reciprocal linking of data and other underlying material and the contribution through persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs) is best practice.

Long-term archiving

All content published in the journal is archived in the long-term preservation archive Rosetta. Rosetta is maintained by ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre Economics in cooperation with the German TIB (Hannover) and ZBMED (Cologne/Bonn).

Publication ethics

Standards on ethics in publishing safeguard that publications are high quality, credible, and that authors receive appropriate credit for their works. For authors, it is therefore crucial to avoid

  • Data fabrication and falsification: Data fabrication means the scientist did not actually do the research, but made up the presented data. Data falsification means the manipulation of data (e.g. removing inconvenient data points) in order to provide a false impression. Data fabrication and falsification is scientific misconduct.
  • Plagiarism: Using the thoughts and works, even small pieces, of another person without providing appropriate credit is fraudulent.
  • Multiple submissions: It is dishonest to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. This practise waste time of editors and reviewers and can harm the reputation of the respective journals.
  • Redundant publications (or 'salami' publications): This means publishing various (often very similar) papers based on the same research.
  • Improper author contribution or attribution: The author list must only contain persons who contributed significantly (in a scientific sense) to the presented work. Likewise, all persons who made such contribution must be included.
  • Citation manipulation: excessive author and journal self-citations, honorary citations, and any form of citation stacking is scientific malpractice.

In accordance with the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools, AI tools (such as ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors of a paper. These tools cannot take responsibility for the submitted work and hence do not meet the requirements for authorship such as the ability to declare competing interests or to agree to the license agreement.

Not only authors need to adhere to ethical standards, but also editors and reviewers:

  • Editors and reviewers must give unbiased consideration to all submitted manuscripts, review each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  • Editors and reviewers must not handle manuscripts they are directly affiliated with.
  • Editors and reviewers must avoid any real or perceived conflict of interests.
  • Editors and reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of authors.
  • Editors and reviewers must respect confidentially of any non-pubic information they see during peer review.

TIB Open Publishing plans to become a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) member. Therefore, OCP subscribes to the COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors as well as the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as best practice.

Plagiarism detection

The GJAE uses Cossref’s Similarity Check to detect plagiarism in the submitted manuscripts. It is up to the editors to decide whether any manuscript is rejected because of plagiarism.

Competing interests

Competing interest, also known as conflicts of interest (COIs), arise when issues outside research may fairly be viewed as impacting the work's neutrality or the objectivity of it’s assessment. This can happen at any point of the research cycle. Competing interest include

  • Financial: funding and other payments, goods and services received or expected by the authors relating to the subject of the work or from an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
  • Affiliations: being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
  • Intellectual property: patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization
  • Personal: friends, family, relationships, and other close personal connections
  • Ideology: beliefs or activism, for example, political or religious, relevant to the work
  • Academic: competitors or someone whose work is critiqued Competing interests do not necessarily prevent the publication of research, or prohibit the participation of someone in the review process. However, competing interests do need to be recorded. A straightforward explanation of all potential issues – whether they have had an impact or not – helps to make informed judgements about the research and its review.

Handling of misconduct

There are two distinct circumstances to be noted: misconduct (i.e. serious scientific fraud such as data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) and honest errors. Errors may be due to inattentiveness (e.g. mistake in methods) and are not to be regarded as misconduct. DEA Panel will follow the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected or proven misconduct. The GJAE will take steps to correct the scientific record if it considers clear proof of misconduct.

Please find further information on post-publication corrections on the page Submissions.

Complaints

Any complaints should be directed to the editors.

Disclaimer

Any opinions expressed and information presented in the GJAE are the views of the authors and not of the editors or TIB Open Publishing. The publication of contributions does not constitute endorsement or approval by the journal and/or its publisher. The GJAE and TIB Open Publishing cannot be held responsible for any errors or for any consequences arising from the use of the information contained in this series. While every effort is made by the editors to make sure that no erroneous or false data, view, or statement is published in this journal, TIB Open Publishing and the editors accept no liability of any kind for the consequences of any such inaccurate or misleading data, information, opinion, or statement.

Financing

From 2024 onwards, the journal is financed by the Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues (GEWISOLA), the ZBW - Leibniz-Information Centre Economics and an international financing consortium for Diamond Open Access, the consortium Open Library Economics ejournals.