Agsy submission

Submission Preflight (agsy-submission)

The last check before pressing submit through the current Elsevier submission path / Editorial Manager. AgSy is single anonymized, so there is no manuscript-anonymization step — but the front matter (abstract, Highlights, graphical abstract, declarations) and the data/code/model availability statement are where avoidable failures happen. Live-check volatile specifics on the official page before relying on them.

When to trigger

• "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
• Unsure which files/metadata Editorial Manager expects
• Confirming the article type's guideline length is met and all front matter is prepared

Process facts (source map refreshed 2026-06-20)

• Publisher: Elsevier (ISSN 0308-521X print / 1873-2267 online).
• Portal: current ScienceDirect Submit your article link / Editorial Manager path.
• Review model: single anonymized — no manuscript anonymization required.
• Article types: Research paper (~8,000 words), Short communication (~4,000), Perspective (~2,000, rapid review), Comment (~1,000), Review — no hard word cap, but stay near the guideline.
• Consultation: Review, Perspective, and book-review submissions should be discussed with editors first where the Guide requires it.
• Abstract: ≤ 250 words.
• Highlights: required at submission; 3-5 bullets, each max 85 characters including spaces.
• Graphical abstract: required as a separate file; check the current pixel/format specs before upload.
• Declarations: CRediT author-contribution statement; declaration of competing interest; funding sources; generative-AI disclosure when AI tools were used.
• Data/code/model: Option C repository deposit + dataset citation/link + data-availability statement, or a reason sharing is not possible.
• Fee: Open Access APC USD 3,850 excluding taxes; subscription route has no publication fee charged to authors (verified 2026-06-22; re-check the live ScienceDirect figure before submission).

Preflight checklist

Article type & length

• Article type chosen; length near its guideline (research ~8,000 / short comm ~4,000 / perspective ~2,000 / comment ~1,000)
• Abstract ≤ 250 words; states purpose, principal results, major conclusions
• Highlights drafted (3-5 bullets, max 85 characters each); graphical abstract prepared

Systems content (fit)

• The systems question (interactions / hierarchical levels / trade-offs) is explicit
• Model described, calibrated, and independently evaluated; sensitivity/uncertainty reported
• Decision / management / policy relevance stated (see agsy-impact-and-implications)

Format & declarations

• References in the journal's style; consistent throughout
• CRediT roles + declaration of competing interest completed
• Funding and AI-use disclosures complete; corresponding author and contact details correct
• Figures/tables self-contained and accessible (see agsy-figures-and-tables)

Data, code & compliance

• Data + code + model deposited; data-availability statement in the manuscript (see agsy-reproducibility-and-data-policy)
• Ethics / funding / conflict declarations complete
• Original work; preprint status checked against Elsevier sharing policy

Anti-patterns

• Abstract over 250 words; missing Highlights or graphical abstract
• No CRediT / competing-interest statement; missing funding or AI-use disclosure where required
• A single-factor field trial sent to a systems journal (fit failure — see agsy-review-process)
• A black-box model with no calibration/evaluation or no data/code/model deposit
• Sending a full study to the Perspective track (wrong type and length)

Worked micro-example (illustrative)

A crop–livestock simulation study with scenario analysis is readied for upload; the preflight catches three avoidable failures:

• Abstract = 268 words → over the 250 cap. Trimmed to 242 by cutting two methods sentences and one caveat, keeping purpose, principal result, and the trade-off conclusion.
• No graphical abstract → a conceptual crop–livestock system diagram is prepared, satisfying the requirement and doubling as the framing exhibit.
• Model deposited, run scripts not → Elsevier counts code and models as research data, so run scripts and parameter files are added to the deposit and the data-availability statement links the DOI, pre-empting a late reproducibility hold (see agsy-review-process).

Result: a clean upload rather than three Editorial Manager bounce-backs.

Desk-reject patterns this preflight catches

• Fit failure. A single-factor field trial with no interactions, model, or trade-off reads as an agronomy paper at a systems journal — reframe via agsy-topic-selection or re-route.
• Black-box model. No version, calibration, evaluation, or deposit → the model cannot be assessed.
• Wrong track. A full study compressed into Perspective length, or a Perspective padded into a research paper — type/length mismatch is an early screen.
• Incomplete front matter. Missing Highlights, graphical abstract, CRediT, COI, funding, or AI-use disclosure stalls the submission before review starts.

Calibration anchors

• The ≤250-word abstract, 3-5 Highlights, graphical abstract, CRediT roles, competing-interest declaration, funding disclosure, AI-use disclosure, and Option C data statement are the current pre-submission checks.
• Re-open the ScienceDirect Submit your article link and Guide for Authors before upload because URLs, fees, and file specs can change.

Output format

【Article type】Research / Short comm / Perspective / Comment / Review (length near guideline? Y/N)
【Abstract】word count (≤250); Highlights + graphical abstract? [Y/N]
【Systems content】question + model + evaluation + decision relevance? [Y/N]
【Declarations】CRediT + COI + funding/AI disclosure? [Y/N]
【Data/code/model】deposited + availability statement? [Y/N]
【References】journal style consistent? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → agsy-revision-and-rebuttal on revision

Supplementary resources

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — reference managers, typesetting, repositories
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official AgSy URLs behind every fact in this pack