Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.

All submissions must meet the following requirements.

  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
  • Where available, URLs and DOIs for the references have been provided.
  • Author's declaration document is filled and signed and uploaded with your manuscript during the submisssion process.

Author Guidelines




Preparation of manuscripts

Ms Word Template

When preparing manuscripts, the Microsoft Word template file must be used.  Using the template file is essential in copy-editing and publication of accepted manuscripts. Combine all parts of the manuscript in one Word file and please submit only a single file. The graphics (diagrams, schemes, figures, etc.) should be inserted in the main text after the paragraph of its first citation.

Authors are requested to examine a recent copy of Acta Agraria Debreceniensis. Authors are requested to send the electronic version of the manuscript using the Submissions option of this website. Please follow the hyperlink here "Submit online" or on the top of this page and upload all of your manuscript files following the instructions given on the screen.

General recommendations:

Page size:       A/4, orientation: portrait, if possible

The main chapters of the article:


All publications cited in the text should be presented in the list of references, arranged in alphabetical order.
Standard journal article
Mpelasoka, B. S.; Behboudian, M. H.; Dixon, J.; Neal, S. M.; Caspari, H. W. (2004): Improvement of fruit quality and storage potential of ‘Braeburn’ apple through deficit irrigation. Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology. 75: 615–621.
No author given
Anonymous (1947): The measurement of potato blight. Transactions of the British Mycological Society. 31: 140–1.[DOI]
Journal supplement
Grylls, N. E.; Waterford, C. J. (1976): Transmission of the causal agent of chloris striate mosaic disease by insect injection and membrane feeding. Australian Plant Pathological Society Newsletter. 5 (Suppl. 1): 89.[DOI]
On-line journal
Gibbs, M. J.; Ziegler, A.; Robinson, D. J.; Waterhouse, P. M.; Cooper, J. I. (1996): Carrot mottle mimic virus (CMoMV): a second umbravirus associated with carrot motley dwarf disease recognized by nucleic acid hybridization. Molecular Plant Pathology. On-line [] 1996/1111gibbs.[DOI]
Books and ther monographs
Personal author(s)
Sutton, B.C. (1980): The Coelomycetes. Kew, UK: Commonwealth Mycological Institute. Editor, compiler, chairman as author
Palti, J.; Kranz, J. eds (1980): Comparative Epidemiology. A Tool for Better Disease Management. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.
Chapter in a book
Jones, C.S.; Smith, N.; Brown, R.S. (1979): Biology of diseases caused by Botrytis spp. In: Smith N, Brown RS, eds. Diseases of Vegetables. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 40–49.
Dissertation or thesis
Lenné, J.M. (1978): Studies of the Biology and Taxonomy of Colletotrichum Species. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne, PhD thesis.

Units and quantities
SI units are preferred. Others should be related to SI units at the first mention. Numbers preceding units should be written as numerals, those preceding other items up to nine should be spelt out, e.g. 8 cm, 2 days, nine fields, 10 leaves. Units should preferably be explicit, e.g. 1 g/L or g L^ –1 rather than 0.1% w/v. Whereas grams per litre can be indicated as g L–1, spores per litre is written as spores per L.

Latin binomials
Except in taxonomy papers, Latin binomial names are given without authorities.



  • Authors declare that paper is their own, original and unpublished work, an author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • Authors declare that the manuscript it has not been copied or plagiarised (in whole or in part); a paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work; any used information resources (phrases, data, images, …) must be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • The journal does not accept secondary communication.



Peer-review process steps

  • Manuscript submission – the correspondence author submits the manuscript to the journal, online via online editorial system.
  • Editorial office assessment –the journal checks the manuscript’s composition and arrangement against the Instructions to Authors.
  • Evaluation by the Editor-in -Chief checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed.
  • EIC may assign an Executive Editors – who will handle the peer review.
  • Invitation to Reviewers –at least two reviewers (double blind review) are assigned by the Editor in Chief or the Associate Editor to review a manuscript. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until at least 2 acceptances are obtained.
  • Response to invitations –potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Review is conducted – If there are serious methodological errors, low levels of results, or missing discussions, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the manuscript without further work. If there are minor deficiencies, we recommend to mark them according to the lines. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept (without change, minor revisions, major revisions and second review) or reject it.
  • The handling editor (Editor or assigned Executive Editor)considers the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor invites and additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision. The editor decides on the publication of papers, taking into account peer reviews, scientific importance, and recommendations of the Editorial Board members.
  • The decision is communicated. The Executive Editor sends a decision email to the correspondence author including any relevant comments.
  • Next steps. If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production. If the article isrejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the paper. If the paper was sent back to authors for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.