About

Brief Background


Coffee Science is a scientific journal from the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), Brazil. Since
its beginning in 2006, the journal has been dedicated to promoting agricultural sciences globally by disseminating discoveries and knowledge from researchers and scientists across the world. It is an open-access journal with the mission of publishing high-quality research in all scientific fields related to coffee. Information regarding Coffee Science's editorial policies is available at: https://coffeescience.ufla.br./index.php/Coffeescience

 

Open Access

This journal follows the Open Access model, providing unrestricted virtual access (including financial restrictions) to all scientific texts published by the journal.

Open Access is the condition where the copyright holder of a scholarly work grants usage rights to others using an open license (Creative Commons Attribution - CC-BY 4.0) allowing for immediate free access to the work and permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.

 

Open Science Compliance

The journal Coffee Science adopts practices aligned with the principles of Open Science, aiming to promote transparency, accessibility, reproducibility, and the sharing of scientific knowledge. In this context, the journal establishes the following guidelines:

  1. Open Access: All articles are published under an open-access model, allowing anyone to read, download, copy, and share their content free of charge for educational purposes and the dissemination of knowledge, subject to the terms of the usage license adopted by the journal.
  2. Preprint servers: Articles that have been posted as preprints on recognized servers (e.g., SciELO Preprints, arXiv, bioRxiv) are accepted (see the Preprints section).
  3. Transparency in authorship and the editorial process: A declaration of each author’s individual contribution is mandatory. Furthermore, the name of the editor responsible for the editorial process is published alongside each article.
  4. Sharing of peer review reports: Subject to the prior consent of both the reviewers and the authors, the content of the review reports and the reviewers' suggestions may be made publicly available, thereby contributing to the transparency of the peer review process.
  5. Digital identification: all published articles are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), ensuring their persistent identification and facilitating their location, citation, and retrieval in digital environments.
  6. Author identification: all authors must have an ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) record—a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers and links their contributions to their scientific output.

Authors must state their position on this matter by completing the Open Science Compliance Form, a mandatory component of the submission process.

Ethics in Publication

The journal complies with the SciELO Guidelines Practices for Strengthening Ethics in Scientific Publication as well as the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscript that involves experimentation with living animals must provide evidence that it was performed under local ethical guidelines. This evidence must be officially stated in the Material and Methods section, describing that the study was evaluated and approved by an appropriate ethical committee.

 

Digital Preservation

The journal follows the Digital Preservation Policy of the SciELO Program

 

Indexing Sources

  • AGRIS - International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology
  • AGROBASE - Base de Dados da Agricultura Brasileira
  • CAB Abstracts - Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau
  • DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • LATINDEX - Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, Espanã y Portugal
  • SCOPUS - Elsevier
  • Sumários.org - Sumários de Revistas Brasileiras
  • MIAR - Matriz de Información para el Análisis de Revistas

 

Bibliographic Journal Information

  • Title: Coffee Science
  • Abbreviated title: Coffee Sci. 
  • Publisher: Editora UFLA
  • eISSN: 1984-3909; ISSN: 1809-6875
  • Periodicity: Annual
  • Publication model: Continuous publication
  • Year of journal start: 2006

 

Websites and Social Media

https://coffeescience.ufla.br/index.php/Coffeescience/index

 

Editorial Policy

Received manuscripts are forwarded to the editorial board to be initially evaluated in terms of comparative relevance to other manuscripts of the same research area that were submitted for publication. If considered as relevant, the manuscript is submitted for peer review. If considered as not relevant, the manuscript is rejected without further review.

 

Preprints

Preprints (previously deposited at the SciELO Preprints repository) may also be published. If the preprint is accepted for publication, it is the responsibility of the corresponding author to report the fact to the preprint repository.

 

Peer review process and editorial workflow

The editorial workflow for the journal Coffee Science begins when the technical team receives a manuscript and conducts a preliminary check of the required documentation and the formal aspects of the submission. At this stage, the submission is evaluated for compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines, the inclusion of statements regarding authorship and potential conflicts of interest, adherence to Open Science principles and practices, and fulfillment of ethical requirements applicable to the research. This initial analysis aims to ensure that the manuscript meets the editorial criteria necessary for it to proceed to the evaluation process.

Subsequently, under the supervision of the editor-in-chief, the manuscript undergoes an editorial screening and assessment of its originality, thematic relevance, academic consistency, methodological soundness, and contribution to the field of knowledge. At this stage, the editor-in-chief may decide whether the manuscript should proceed through the editorial process or be rejected outright—for instance, if it falls outside the journal’s scope, exhibits clear methodological flaws, fails to meet ethical standards, lacks originality, or does not comply with the journal’s editorial guidelines.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are forwarded to the peer-review process, with reviewers selected from among ad hoc experts or members of the editorial board whose qualifications align with the manuscript's subject matter. In assembling the review team, the aim is to ensure institutional, geographical, and international diversity, whenever possible.

The journal Coffee Science adopts the double-blind peer review model, ensuring the anonymity of authors and evaluators during the evaluation process. To preserve this model, authorship information must appear exclusively on the title page, which is removed before sending the manuscript to reviewers. In general, two evaluators with specific knowledge on the topic are invited. When there is a substantial divergence between the opinions, the manuscript may be submitted to a third evaluator for consideration.

The reviews provided are examined by the editor. If adjustments are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors for revision and may then be submitted for a new round of evaluation.

In line with its Open Science policy, the journal Coffee Science may incorporate practices that open up the editorial process, where applicable and subject to the authorization of the participants involved. Authors and reviewers may indicate whether they consent to the disclosure of the content of peer reviews, the authors' responses, and/or the names and institutional affiliations of those participating in the evaluation process. In the absence of such authorization, the content of the reviews and the identities of the reviewers will remain confidential.

The final editorial decision rests with the editor-in-chief, based on a critical analysis of the process, the reviews received, and the recommendation of the associate editor. Decisions may result in acceptance, a request for minor revisions, a request for major revisions, or rejection. The decision is not merely a matter of counting reviews, but rather an informed editorial judgment based on scientific quality, research integrity, methodological consistency, and alignment with the journal’s editorial policy.

Manuscripts that are rejected but show potential for improvement may be revised by the authors and resubmitted as a new submission, initiating a fresh review process.

For articles that are accepted and published, the journal identifies the associate editor responsible for handling the manuscript, in line with its commitment to editorial transparency, the traceability of the decision-making process, and best practices in scientific communication.

 

Data Availability

All original research articles must include a "Data Availability" section stating whether the dataset is publicly available and where it is deposited. Please include this section on the title page.

In accordance with the SciELO guide on data availability statements (https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/dados.pdf), the use of one of the following options is mandatory:

Data not available – The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available.

Data availability – The data supporting the conclusions of this study (a) have been published in this article; (b) have been published in this article and in the accompanying “Supplementary Material” section; (c) are available in [name of repository] and can be accessed at [URL or DOI]; or (d) are available in [name of repository] under the identification codes [list of identifiers]. In the case of anonymized data, use (e) the anonymized data supporting the conclusions of this study are available in [name of repository] and can be accessed at [URL or DOI].

Data available upon request – The data supporting the findings of this study are available, upon reasonable request, from (a) the corresponding author [name of corresponding author]; or (b) [name of organization]. The dataset is not publicly available because [provide details, e.g., the data contain information that compromises the privacy of research participants].

The journal Coffee Science includes a section for Data available upon request.

If a manuscript is accepted for publication, this information will be included in a “Data Availability Statement” at the end of the article.

For more information, please visit:

Guide to promoting the opening, transparency and reproducibility of research published by SciELO journals https://www.scielo.org/en/about-scielo/methodologies-and-technologies/guia-para-promocao-da-abertura-transparencia-e-reprodutibilidade-das-pesquisas-publicadas-pelos-periodicos-scielo/

A list of recommended repositories for depositing data is available at: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Lista-de-Repositorios-Recomendados_pt.pdf

Fees

Coffee Science does not charge fees for submission, publication, or manuscript evaluation.

 

 

Copyright

Authors publishing in Coffee Science retain full copyright of their work while granting the journal the right of first publication. The manuscripts are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, permitting unrestricted distribution and reuse, provided the original article is properly credited.

 

Sponsors and Promotion Agencies

             Editora UFLA

 

Policy on Conflict of Interest

In conflit of interest presence, for any reason, the author(s) must inform the journal by mean a specific statement. Conflicts of interest may occur when authors, reviewers or editors have personal, commercial, financial or academic interests that may interfere with the preparation, analysis or judgment of the manuscript.

Adoption of similarity software

Ideas or writing from someone else has to be properly cited. The journal might use similarity software to detect article plagiarism. If detected, the submitted manuscript is automatically rejected without further review.