Peer Review Process
AgroSciTech: Journal of Sustainable Agriculture enforces a rigorous and double-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest scientific quality, integrity, and originality of all published manuscripts. Under this policy, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are strictly kept anonymous throughout the entire evaluation procedure.
Evaluation Workflow Stages:
1 Initial Editorial Desk Review
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor will perform a preliminary screening of the manuscript. At this stage, the submission is evaluated based on:
- Scope Fit: Alignment with the focal themes and research priorities of the journal.
- Basic Quality & Formatting: Adherence to the Author Guidelines and proper academic English phrasing.
- Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are rigorously screened for similarity index using Turnitin. Submissions exceeding the journal's maximum tolerance threshold will be rejected immediately (Desk Rejection).
2 Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial desk review are assigned to a minimum of two (2) independent external expert reviewers who specialize in the respective field of study. Reviewers are given a specified period (typically 3–4 weeks) to critically evaluate the manuscript's methodology, empirical evidence, theoretical framework, clarity of results, and overall contribution to agricultural science and agribusiness.
3 Editorial Decision
Based on the detailed evaluation forms and constructive feedback provided by the reviewers, the handling editor will make one of the following final decisions:
- Accept As Is: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further modifications.
- Minor Revisions: The authors are requested to address minor clarifications or structural adjustments before acceptance.
- Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant revisions, additional data collection, or rewriting. Acceptance is conditional upon a secondary round of review.
- Reject: The manuscript contains fundamental flaws, insufficient contribution, or irrecoverable methodological issues, making it unsuitable for publication.
4 Final Approval and Production
If revisions are required, authors must submit the revised manuscript along with a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document within the stipulated deadline. The Editorial Board retains the final authority to officially approve the manuscript for typesetting, layout editing, and online publication.
|
