Peer Review Processes

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Agricultural Sciences (IJASC) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethically responsible peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, relevance, and integrity of the scholarly works it publishes. Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly communication because it provides an independent assessment of submitted manuscripts and supports informed editorial decision-making.

This policy establishes the principles, procedures, and responsibilities governing peer review at IJASC. It describes the journal's peer review model, the selection and appointment of reviewers, the responsibilities of editors and reviewers, the criteria used to evaluate manuscripts, the handling of revisions, and the procedures for communicating editorial decisions.

IJASC recognises that agricultural sciences encompass diverse research approaches, including laboratory experiments, field trials, agronomic studies, agricultural economics, soil and water research, plant and animal sciences, agricultural engineering, crop protection, food and farming systems, and other relevant areas. The peer review process must therefore be appropriate to the research questions, methods, evidence, and disciplinary standards of each submission.

The journal seeks to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated on their scholarly merit rather than the authors' institutional affiliations, academic positions, nationality, personal relationships, financial resources, or other irrelevant considerations. Peer review shall be conducted by individuals with appropriate expertise who can provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

To support impartiality and reduce potential bias, IJASC proposes the use of a double-blind peer review model, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. The model shall be implemented consistently for eligible scholarly submissions, subject to the journal's formally approved editorial arrangements and the practical limitations inherent in scholarly review.

IJASC's peer review procedures are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, particularly its guidance on peer review processes, and by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. The journal also recognises the importance of reviewer guidance, confidentiality, disclosure of conflicts of interest, responsible handling of suspected misconduct, and appropriate procedures for appeals and disputes.

This policy applies to authors, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, external reviewers, and editorial staff involved in manuscript assessment and publication. It should be read together with IJASC's policies on publication ethics, authorship and contributorship, conflicts of interest, research ethics, allegations of misconduct, complaints and appeals, data availability and reproducibility, intellectual property, and post-publication discussions and corrections.

2. Description

2.1. Peer Review

Peer review is the structured evaluation of a submitted scholarly manuscript by independent experts with relevant knowledge of the subject matter or methodology. It provides editors with informed assessments to support publication decisions and offers authors feedback that may improve the quality, clarity, robustness, and contribution of their work.

Peer review does not guarantee that a manuscript is free from error or that every conclusion is correct. Rather, it provides an independent quality-control mechanism that helps identify strengths, weaknesses, limitations, methodological problems, ethical concerns, and opportunities for improvement.

At IJASC, peer review is intended to assess whether a manuscript meets the journal's academic standards, falls within its aims and scope, and provides a sufficiently sound and relevant contribution to agricultural sciences.

2.2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Double-blind peer review is a review model in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the editorial review process.

Under this model:

Authors do not ordinarily receive the names or identifying information of the reviewers assigned to their manuscripts.
Reviewers are not ordinarily provided with the authors' names, institutional affiliations, or other direct identifying information in the anonymised manuscript files.
Editors and authorised editorial personnel may have access to the identities of both parties where necessary to administer the process.
Authors are responsible for removing identifying information from the main manuscript and associated review files.
Reviewers are expected to avoid disclosing their identities in comments intended for authors.

Double-blind review is intended to reduce the potential influence of reputation, institutional prestige, nationality, gender, professional relationships, and other factors unrelated to scholarly merit. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly when manuscripts describe identifiable projects, datasets, field sites, specialised methods, or previously disseminated research.

2.3. Types of Manuscripts Subject to Peer Review

Scholarly submissions intended to contribute original research, scientific analysis, or substantial academic discussion shall normally undergo external peer review before a final publication decision.

Depending on IJASC's formally approved article categories, these submissions may include:

Original research articles;
Review articles;
Short communications or research notes;
Methodological or technical contributions;
Case studies with substantial scholarly analysis; and
Other research-based article types within the journal's aims and scope.

Editorials, announcements, corrections, letters, invited commentaries, and other non-research content may be subject to a different editorial assessment process where appropriate. The journal shall clearly identify any exceptions to its standard peer review process and describe the applicable assessment procedure.

The article categories actually accepted by IJASC shall be defined in its Author Guidelines. No article type shall be represented as externally peer reviewed unless it has undergone the stated process.

2.4. Initial Editorial Assessment

Initial editorial assessment, sometimes referred to as desk review, is the preliminary examination of a submission before it is sent for external peer review.

This assessment determines whether the manuscript:

Falls within the journal's aims and scope;
Fits an accepted article category;
Meets the basic submission and formatting requirements;
Contains the information necessary for scholarly evaluation;
Demonstrates a sufficient level of originality and potential contribution;
Presents research methods and evidence in a form suitable for assessment;
Includes required declarations and ethical documentation, where applicable; and
Raises preliminary concerns that require clarification before review.

The initial assessment may include similarity screening, a preliminary examination of research ethics statements, and checks of the manuscript's completeness.

A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it is outside the journal's scope, fails to meet essential submission requirements, lacks sufficient scholarly substance, or presents concerns that make external review inappropriate. Such decisions should be based on legitimate editorial criteria and communicated appropriately to the corresponding author.

2.5. External Reviewers

External reviewers are individuals who provide independent expert assessments of manuscripts. They are normally selected from the scholarly community based on their subject knowledge, methodological expertise, relevant research experience, publication record, and ability to assess the work objectively.

Reviewers may be drawn from universities, research institutes, agricultural research centres, scientific organisations, or other relevant professional institutions.

Reviewers should have sufficient expertise to evaluate the aspects of a manuscript assigned to them. Where a submission involves several specialised methods or interdisciplinary questions, the editor may appoint reviewers with complementary expertise.

Reviewers are expected to provide reasoned and constructive assessments rather than merely expressing whether they support or oppose publication.

2.6. Editorial Responsibility for Peer Review

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is implemented consistently with the journal's policies and ethical standards.

A designated handling editor may oversee an individual manuscript, identify and invite reviewers, monitor the review process, evaluate reviewer reports, request additional assessments, and make or recommend a decision within the authority assigned by the journal.

The editor retains responsibility for the editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations inform that decision but do not automatically determine the outcome.

2.7. Review Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to criteria relevant to the article type, research design, and subject area.

General criteria may include:

Relevance and scope: whether the manuscript fits IJASC's aims and scope.
Originality: whether the work provides an original contribution or a meaningful synthesis of existing knowledge.
Scientific significance: whether the research addresses a relevant question or problem in agricultural sciences.
Literature review: whether relevant and sufficiently current literature is considered and interpreted appropriately.
Research design and methodology: whether the methods are appropriate, clearly described, and sufficiently rigorous for the research question.
Data quality and analysis: whether data collection, experimental design, statistical analysis, modelling, and interpretation are appropriate.
Results and conclusions: whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence and whether uncertainty and limitations are adequately acknowledged.
Reproducibility and transparency: whether methods, data, materials, and analytical procedures are described sufficiently for verification or replication, where applicable.
Research and publication ethics: whether ethical approval, informed consent, animal welfare, biosafety, environmental protection, conflicts of interest, and other relevant matters have been addressed.
Presentation and clarity: whether the manuscript is logically organised, clearly written, and supported by appropriate tables, figures, and references.
Contribution to agricultural sciences: whether the findings or analysis provide a useful contribution to scientific knowledge, agricultural practice, policy, or further research.

Not every criterion applies equally to every article type. Reviewers should distinguish essential scientific weaknesses from matters of presentation that can reasonably be corrected during revision.

2.8. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection, or use equivalent categories specified by the journal's review system.

These recommendations are advisory. The handling editor must assess the quality and relevance of the reviews, the manuscript itself, and any applicable ethical concerns before reaching a decision.

Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor should consider the reasons for disagreement, the reviewers' areas of expertise, and the significance of the issues raised. The editor may seek an additional independent opinion when necessary.

2.9. Confidentiality in Peer Review

Manuscripts under review, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and related materials shall be treated as confidential unless the journal's formally declared review model or an authorised procedure provides otherwise.

Reviewers shall not share manuscript files, disclose unpublished findings, discuss confidential review matters with unauthorised individuals, or use information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

Editors and editorial staff shall protect confidential information and restrict access to individuals who require it for legitimate editorial purposes.

Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is authorised by the relevant parties, required by applicable law, or necessary for an appropriately managed investigation of serious misconduct. Any such disclosure should be limited to what is necessary and handled responsibly.

2.10. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

A conflict of interest exists when personal, professional, institutional, financial, or other relationships could compromise or reasonably appear to compromise the impartiality of a reviewer or editor.

Potential conflicts include recent collaboration, shared grants, supervisory or mentoring relationships, close personal connections, institutional relationships, direct competition, financial interests, or disputes with an author.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts before accepting an invitation and should decline assignments where the conflict could prevent an impartial assessment.

Editors must also identify and manage their own conflicts of interest. A conflicted editor shall not manage or decide the affected manuscript and should arrange for an independent editor to assume responsibility.

2.11. Revisions and Reassessment

A revision is a request for authors to address substantive or editorial concerns identified during the review process.

Minor revisions typically involve limited clarification, additional explanation, correction of errors, improved presentation, or other changes that do not fundamentally alter the research.

Major revisions may involve substantial changes to the analysis, methodology, interpretation, discussion, supporting evidence, or presentation. Major revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the handling editor, depending on the nature of the requested changes and the expertise required. Further review may be necessary when significant new evidence or analysis is introduced.

2.12. Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions may include rejection without external review, rejection after peer review, a request for revision, acceptance subject to specified conditions, or final acceptance.

The decision shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief or a duly authorised handling editor in accordance with the journal's governance arrangements.

The decision should reflect the manuscript's scholarly quality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and response to the concerns raised. Acceptance shall not be guaranteed by submission, payment, reviewer recommendation, personal relationships, or institutional influence.

2.13. Appeals and Disputes

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in accordance with IJASC's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should identify a material factual misunderstanding, a significant procedural irregularity, a potential conflict of interest, evidence of bias, or another substantive reason why the decision may warrant reconsideration.

An appeal is not simply a request for a different outcome because an author disagrees with the reviewers' academic judgment. Appeals should be considered by an editor or other authorised person who can assess the matter impartially.

Where a complaint concerns the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, an alternative independent procedure shall be used.

2.14. Reviewer Recognition

Peer reviewers contribute expertise, time, and professional judgment to scholarly publishing. IJASC may recognise their contributions through appropriate means, such as certificates, acknowledgements, or an annual list of reviewers, provided that recognition is consistent with the journal's confidentiality requirements and the reviewers' preferences.

Public acknowledgement shall not reveal which reviewer assessed a particular manuscript unless the journal has adopted a transparent review model that permits such disclosure and the relevant conditions have been met.

Reviewer recognition shall not be presented as a substitute for editorial independence, review quality, or appropriate ethical conduct.

3. Policy

3.1. General Mandate for Peer Review

IJASC shall subject eligible scholarly manuscripts to a documented peer review process before making a final publication decision.

The journal shall ensure that peer review is conducted by suitably qualified and sufficiently independent reviewers and is managed by authorised editors. The review process shall be consistent with the manuscript's article type, the journal's scope, and applicable ethical requirements.

Any exceptions to external peer review shall be clearly described in the journal's public policies. Where an item receives editorial assessment rather than external peer review, the journal shall not misrepresent the nature of that assessment.

3.2. Peer Review Model

IJASC adopts a double-blind peer review model as the proposed standard for eligible scholarly submissions. The journal shall disclose the model clearly in its Author Guidelines and on its website once formally approved.

Under this model, the editorial office shall take reasonable steps to prevent reviewers from receiving direct identifying information about the authors and to prevent authors from learning reviewers' identities through the journal's communications.

The journal recognises that double-blind review cannot guarantee complete anonymity in every case. Reviewers may sometimes infer authorship from subject expertise, cited work, data sources, or prior dissemination. Such inference does not, by itself, invalidate the review, provided that the reviewer evaluates the manuscript fairly and discloses any relevant conflict of interest.

Any future change to the peer review model shall be approved by the journal's authorised editorial leadership and communicated transparently before it is implemented.

3.3. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions shall undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for further consideration.

The editorial office may check submission completeness, required files, author declarations, formatting, anonymisation, and compliance with administrative requirements. The handling editor shall assess the manuscript's relevance, scholarly substance, and suitability for external review.

The journal may conduct similarity screening or other appropriate preliminary checks to identify potential overlap, plagiarism, or related concerns. Similarity scores shall not be interpreted mechanically without considering the nature of the overlap, citations, quotations, methods descriptions, and other relevant context.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review where it falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet essential requirements, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, or presents material concerns that cannot appropriately be addressed through external review.

Desk decisions shall be made fairly and shall not be used to favour particular authors or institutions.

3.4. Number and Independence of Reviewers

IJASC should normally seek at least two independent external review reports for each manuscript undergoing full peer review.

The editor may seek additional reviews where the manuscript is interdisciplinary, technically complex, methodologically contentious, or subject to substantially conflicting assessments.

In exceptional circumstances, the editor may proceed with fewer than two external reports if a sufficient independent assessment cannot reasonably be obtained. Such an exception must be justified by the circumstances, documented internally, and consistent with the journal's quality standards. The journal should avoid making an acceptance decision on the basis of an inadequate review record.

Reviewers should be independent of the authors and should not have relationships or interests that would materially compromise their impartiality.

3.5. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor shall select reviewers according to their relevant expertise, experience, independence, availability, and ability to provide a reasoned assessment.

In selecting reviewers, the editor may consider:

Relevant subject and methodological expertise;
Recent scholarly publications in the manuscript's field;
Experience with relevant experimental, analytical, or theoretical approaches;
The ability to evaluate research integrity and methodological limitations;
Previous review performance, where known; and
Potential conflicts of interest or other reasons for concern.

The editor should seek reviewers with complementary expertise when this would improve the assessment. Reviewers should not be selected solely because they are likely to support or oppose the manuscript's conclusions.

Reviewer invitations should communicate the manuscript's general subject, the expected scope of review, the applicable confidentiality requirements, the deadline, and the procedure for declaring conflicts of interest.

3.6. Author-Suggested Reviewers

IJASC may permit authors to suggest potential reviewers as part of the submission process. Suggestions are optional and do not create an entitlement to have any suggested individual review the manuscript.

The handling editor retains full responsibility for selecting reviewers and shall independently assess the suitability and independence of any suggested candidate.

Authors who suggest reviewers should provide sufficient identifying information, including the reviewer's full name, institutional affiliation, relevant expertise, and a verifiable professional contact address where available. The journal may request additional information to verify suitability.

Authors must not suggest individuals with whom they have close personal or professional relationships that could compromise impartiality. They must not provide fabricated reviewer identities, misleading contact details, or email addresses intended to divert review invitations to unauthorised persons.

The editor may reject any suggestion that appears unsuitable, unverifiable, conflicted, or inconsistent with the journal's requirements. The editor should independently identify other reviewers rather than relying exclusively on author suggestions.

If IJASC establishes specific numerical limits or qualification criteria for suggested reviewers, those requirements shall be published in the Author Guidelines and applied consistently.

3.7. Reviewer Eligibility and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must have sufficient expertise to evaluate the aspects of the manuscript assigned to them and must be able to provide an impartial assessment.

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers shall consider whether they have any personal, professional, institutional, financial, or intellectual conflict that could affect their judgment.

Reviewers should decline an invitation if, for example, they:

Have a close personal relationship with an author;
Have a recent or substantial collaboration with an author that could compromise impartiality;
Are involved in a direct competitive relationship concerning the work;
Have a financial interest that could be affected by the publication decision;
Have a significant dispute with an author; or
Lack the expertise or time required to complete the review adequately.

If a potential conflict is uncertain, the reviewer should disclose it to the editor and seek guidance before proceeding.

The editor shall assess disclosed conflicts and determine whether the reviewer may participate, whether additional safeguards are necessary, or whether another reviewer should be appointed.

3.8. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers shall provide independent, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessments.

Their responsibilities include:

Assessing the manuscript against relevant scientific and editorial criteria.
Evaluating the suitability of the research design and methods.
Considering whether data, analyses, results, and conclusions are adequately supported.
Identifying significant weaknesses, limitations, ambiguities, or unsupported claims.
Evaluating whether relevant literature has been considered appropriately.
Identifying concerns about research ethics, plagiarism, redundant publication, questionable data, or other potential misconduct.
Providing clear and actionable recommendations to improve the manuscript.
Maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process.
Disclosing conflicts of interest promptly.
Declining assignments beyond their competence or capacity.
Submitting reports within the agreed timeframe or requesting an extension.
Avoiding personal, discriminatory, hostile, or otherwise inappropriate comments.
Refraining from using unpublished information for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.
Not delegating the review to another person without prior permission from the journal.

Reviewers shall distinguish essential scientific concerns from minor editorial suggestions. They should not demand unnecessary experiments, irrelevant citations, or changes that serve primarily to advance their own work or interests.

3.9. Objectivity and Constructiveness

Reviews shall focus on the manuscript's scholarly content rather than the personal characteristics, status, or perceived identity of its authors.

Reviewers shall explain the reasons for major criticisms and support their recommendations with relevant evidence, methodological reasoning, or scholarly references where appropriate.

Criticism should be professional and respectful, even when a manuscript has serious limitations. Discriminatory remarks, insults, threats, or personal attacks are unacceptable.

Editors may request clarification or remove inappropriate personal comments before forwarding reviewer feedback to authors, while preserving the substantive concerns necessary for a fair assessment.

3.10. Confidentiality and Appropriate Use of Manuscripts

Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff shall treat submitted manuscripts and related materials as confidential.

Reviewers shall not circulate manuscripts or supplementary materials to colleagues, students, research assistants, or other individuals without prior permission from the journal. If a reviewer wishes to involve a co-reviewer or trainee for legitimate educational or scholarly reasons, the reviewer must first obtain editorial approval and ensure that the additional participant agrees to the relevant confidentiality and conflict-of-interest obligations.

Information obtained through peer review shall not be used to obtain an unfair research advantage, appropriate unpublished ideas, influence competing work, or harm an author.

Editors and reviewers shall not disclose confidential editorial deliberations or reviewer identities outside authorised channels, except where disclosure is permitted under the journal's policies or required by a legitimate legal or ethical process.

3.11. Suspected Misconduct and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers shall promptly alert the handling editor if they identify credible concerns regarding possible plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, image manipulation, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research, or other potential breaches of publication ethics.

Concerns should be explained clearly and supported by relevant evidence or specific observations wherever possible.

Reviewers should not independently investigate authors, contact institutions, or make public accusations on behalf of the journal. The editor shall assess the concern and follow the relevant IJASC policy, seeking clarification, additional expertise, or institutional information where appropriate.

The existence of an allegation shall not automatically be treated as proof of misconduct. Any editorial action shall be proportionate to the evidence and consistent with fair procedures.

3.12. Reviewer Deadlines and Delays

Reviewers shall be given a reasonable timeframe to complete their assessments, taking into account the manuscript's length, complexity, and technical demands.

IJASC should specify its normal review deadlines in its internal reviewer instructions and, where appropriate, communicate typical timeframes publicly. Such timeframes should reflect actual editorial capacity and should not be presented as guarantees.

If a reviewer cannot complete a review by the agreed deadline, the reviewer should notify the editorial office promptly and indicate whether an extension is feasible.

The editor may grant an extension, send a reminder, invite a replacement reviewer, or seek another suitable reviewer where necessary. Delays shall be managed without compromising the independence or quality of the assessment.

3.13. Reviewer Reports and Editorial Communications

Reviewers shall submit their reports through the journal's designated editorial system or another authorised channel.

Where appropriate, reports should distinguish between:

Comments intended for the authors;
Confidential comments intended for the editor; and
A recommendation concerning the manuscript's editorial disposition.

Confidential comments to the editor shall not be shared with authors without appropriate editorial consideration. Substantive concerns relevant to the author's opportunity to respond should normally be communicated in a fair and appropriate form.

The journal may edit or moderate review reports to remove personal attacks, discriminatory language, confidential identifying information, or other inappropriate content, provided that the integrity of the substantive assessment is preserved.

3.14. Evaluation of Review Reports

The handling editor shall evaluate reviewer reports critically and independently. The editor shall consider the substance, evidence, relevance, and consistency of the reviewers' comments, rather than treating every recommendation as equally authoritative.

Where reviewers disagree, the editor shall assess the reasons for disagreement and determine whether additional review or clarification is required.

An editor may reach a decision that differs from one or more reviewer recommendations where the decision is justified by the manuscript's merits, the review evidence, the journal's criteria, or relevant ethical considerations.

The editor shall not accept or reject a manuscript merely by counting positive and negative recommendations.

3.15. Editorial Decisions

The final editorial decision shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief or a duly authorised handling editor.

The available decisions may include:

Accept: the manuscript meets the journal's requirements and requires no further substantive revision, subject to any remaining formal publication checks.
Minor revision: the manuscript requires limited changes before the editor can determine whether it is ready for acceptance.
Major revision: substantial changes or further clarification are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements, or the concerns identified cannot be resolved adequately within the journal's editorial process.
Reject without external review: the manuscript is unsuitable for further consideration at the initial assessment stage.

A request for revision is not a promise of acceptance. Final acceptance remains subject to satisfactory evaluation of the revised manuscript and compliance with applicable editorial and ethical requirements.

3.16. Communication of Editorial Decisions

Authors shall receive an editorial decision through the journal's authorised communication channel.

The decision communication should, as appropriate, identify the decision category, provide the relevant reviewer comments, explain the principal editorial reasons, and specify any revision requirements or deadlines.

Reviewer comments shared with authors shall ordinarily be anonymised under the double-blind model. The journal shall take reasonable steps to remove identifying information inadvertently included in the reports.

Where a manuscript is rejected, the decision should be communicated professionally and, where appropriate, explain the principal reasons. The journal is not required to provide an exhaustive rebuttal of every argument in a review report, but its communication should be sufficient to make the basis of the decision reasonably understandable.

3.17. Manuscript Revision and Author Responses

When revisions are requested, authors shall submit a revised manuscript and a structured, point-by-point response to the editor's and reviewers' comments.

The response should indicate how each substantive comment has been addressed or explain, with appropriate reasoning, why a proposed change has not been made.

Authors should identify significant modifications in the revised manuscript using the method specified by the journal. They must ensure that revisions do not introduce unsupported claims, inaccurate results, inappropriate authorship changes, or new ethical concerns.

The handling editor shall determine whether the revised manuscript requires further external review or may be assessed editorially. Substantial methodological changes, additional analyses, or unresolved scientific concerns may warrant reassessment by the original reviewers or other qualified experts.

The journal may establish reasonable revision deadlines. Authors who require additional time should request an extension before the deadline where practicable. A failure to respond within the specified period may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn or closed in accordance with the journal's published procedures, with appropriate communication to the corresponding author.

3.18. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal decisions under the IJASC Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal shall identify the specific grounds for reconsideration, such as a material factual error, a serious procedural irregularity, a relevant undisclosed conflict of interest, or credible evidence of bias.

Appeals shall be considered by an appropriately authorised editor or independent person who was not materially responsible for the disputed decision, wherever practicable.

The journal may uphold the original decision, request clarification, commission an additional independent assessment, or revise the decision where justified by the findings.

An appeal shall not automatically suspend all editorial procedures or guarantee a new review. The journal shall communicate the outcome to the appellant through the appropriate channel.

3.19. Peer Review of Editor-Authored Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, or editorial staff shall be managed under procedures designed to protect independence and confidentiality.

The submitting individual shall not select reviewers, access confidential deliberations beyond their legitimate author access, or influence the editorial decision. The manuscript shall be assigned to an independent editor who does not have a relevant conflict of interest.

The journal shall apply the same substantive standards to these submissions as to other manuscripts. Appropriate records should be maintained to document the independent handling arrangement.

3.20. Peer Review Reports, Copyright, and Disclosure

Reviewer reports shall be handled in accordance with IJASC's confidentiality and intellectual property arrangements.

The journal shall inform reviewers how their reports may be stored, processed, shared with authors, or used for editorial administration. Under the proposed double-blind model, anonymised reports may be shared with the authors as part of the decision process.

IJASC shall not publicly publish reviewer reports or disclose reviewer identities as part of a manuscript's review history unless it has adopted a relevant policy and obtained any required permissions, subject to applicable law and legitimate research-integrity investigations.

Any public acknowledgement of reviewers shall be handled separately from manuscript-specific review disclosures and shall respect reviewer preferences and confidentiality.

3.21. Reviewer Recognition and Professional Development

IJASC may recognise reviewers' contributions through certificates, annual acknowledgements, or other appropriate forms of recognition.

Any public list of reviewers shall be compiled carefully and shall not imply that a listed individual reviewed a particular manuscript. The journal shall respect requests not to be publicly acknowledged.

The journal should provide reviewers with clear instructions concerning review criteria, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, deadlines, and the preparation of useful reports.

The journal should also support editors through appropriate guidance on reviewer selection, evaluation of reports, management of conflicting recommendations, and handling of ethical concerns.

3.22. Management of Peer Review Records

IJASC shall maintain appropriate records of the peer review process to support accountability, consistency, and the investigation of legitimate concerns.

Records may include reviewer invitations and responses, declarations of conflicts of interest, review reports, editorial decisions, revision histories, correspondence, and documentation of exceptions to normal procedures.

Access to these records shall be restricted to authorised individuals and managed in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, and data-protection requirements.

Records shall not be altered or destroyed to conceal improper influence, procedural irregularities, or potential misconduct. Retention and disposal shall follow the journal's applicable record-management procedures.

3.23. Review of the Peer Review Policy

IJASC shall periodically review this policy to ensure that it remains appropriate to the journal's scope, article types, editorial capacity, and recognised standards of publication ethics.

Revisions may be necessary when the journal changes its review model, submission system, editorial structure, reviewer selection criteria, or procedures for managing conflicts and appeals.

Changes shall be approved through the journal's authorised governance arrangements, communicated to relevant participants, and reflected in the public policy and associated author and reviewer instructions.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

4.1. Manuscript Preparation for Double-Blind Review

Authors shall prepare the main manuscript file and other files intended for reviewers so that direct identifying information is removed to the extent reasonably possible.

The editorial office should provide instructions covering the following requirements:

Separate title page: Author names, institutional affiliations, corresponding-author details, acknowledgements, and other identifying information should be provided in a separate file or in the appropriate fields of the submission system.
Anonymised main manuscript: The main manuscript should not contain author names, affiliations, or other direct identifiers.
Self-citations: References to authors' previous work should be presented in a neutral scholarly style. Authors must not remove essential citations or distort the literature merely to preserve anonymity.
Acknowledgements: Identifying acknowledgements, funding details that directly reveal the authors' identities, and other identifying statements should be placed in the designated separate file when necessary for review.
File properties: Authors should remove personal names and other identifying information from document properties and metadata where practicable.
Figures and supplementary files: Files submitted for review should be checked for embedded author names, institutional logos, identifying labels, or other direct identifiers where relevant.
Ethical and field-site information: Necessary methodological and ethical information should remain sufficient for meaningful assessment. Anonymisation should not require authors to conceal material information needed to evaluate research integrity.

The editorial office may return submissions for anonymisation corrections before assigning them to reviewers.

4.2. Initial Submission Checks

Upon receipt, the editorial office shall check that the submission contains the required files and declarations, and that the manuscript is sufficiently complete for initial editorial assessment.

The check may include:

Compliance with the journal's submission instructions;
Correct identification of the article type;
Presence of the abstract, keywords, references, tables, and figures as required;
Author and corresponding-author information;
Required statements concerning funding and conflicts of interest;
Research ethics statements and approval information where applicable;
Data availability statements where required;
Permissions for third-party material where applicable; and
Anonymisation for double-blind review.

The editorial office shall refer substantive questions concerning suitability or scientific quality to an authorised editor. Administrative screening shall not substitute for academic assessment.

4.3. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Each eligible manuscript shall be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, or another authorised handling editor based on subject expertise, workload, and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

The handling editor shall be responsible for managing reviewer selection, monitoring the review process, evaluating reports, and making or recommending decisions within the authority delegated by the journal.

Where the assigned editor has a conflict of interest, the manuscript shall be reassigned. The reassignment should be recorded in the editorial system or equivalent records.

4.4. Reviewer Identification and Verification

The handling editor shall identify potential reviewers using appropriate scholarly and professional sources, such as relevant publications, academic affiliations, recognised research expertise, and established professional networks.

The editor should verify that prospective reviewers have relevant expertise and that their professional identities and contact information are reasonably credible.

Where authors suggest reviewers, the editor shall assess those suggestions independently and may decline any candidate who appears unsuitable or conflicted.

The journal should avoid selecting reviewers solely on the basis of author recommendations, personal familiarity, seniority, or presumed agreement with the manuscript's conclusions.

4.5. Reviewer Invitation Procedure

Reviewer invitations shall be issued through the journal's online submission system or another authorised communication channel.

Each invitation should provide sufficient information for the prospective reviewer to assess whether the manuscript falls within their expertise and whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

The invitation should include:

The manuscript title and abstract, subject to confidentiality requirements;
A brief description of the expected review task;
The anticipated deadline;
Instructions for declaring conflicts of interest;
A statement on confidentiality and appropriate use of the manuscript;
Instructions for accepting or declining the invitation; and
A link or reference to the journal's reviewer guidance, where available.

If an invited reviewer declines, fails to respond within a reasonable period, or becomes unavailable, the editor may invite another qualified candidate.

4.6. Review Form and Assessment Guidelines

IJASC should provide a structured review form to support consistent, complete, and useful assessments.

The form should enable reviewers to comment on:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
Originality and significance;
Adequacy of the literature review;
Appropriateness of research design and methodology;
Quality of data, analyses, and interpretation;
Reliability of results and conclusions;
Transparency and reproducibility, where applicable;
Compliance with relevant ethical standards;
Clarity, organisation, tables, figures, and references; and
Overall contribution to agricultural sciences.

The form should include space for comments intended for authors, confidential comments for the editor, and a recommendation.

The journal should make clear that reviewer recommendations are advisory and that the final decision remains the responsibility of the authorised editor.

4.7. Submission and Evaluation of Review Reports

Reviewers shall submit their reports through the authorised editorial system by the agreed deadline.

The handling editor shall check whether the reports provide sufficient substantive information for a decision. Where a report is unclear, incomplete, excessively brief, or raises concerns that require clarification, the editor may seek additional information or another review.

The editor should consider whether reviewer comments are relevant, evidence-based, professionally expressed, and consistent with the journal's criteria.

Inappropriate or potentially identifying content should be handled carefully before reports are communicated to authors. The substance of legitimate criticism shall be preserved so that authors can respond fairly.

4.8. Communication of Decisions and Review Reports

Once the available assessments have been evaluated, the handling editor shall record the decision and prepare an appropriate communication to the corresponding author.

The decision letter should state the decision category, explain the main reasons where appropriate, and include the reviewer comments intended for the authors.

Reviewer reports shall be anonymised in accordance with the double-blind model. The editorial office should inspect the reports for accidental signatures, identifying statements, or other information that could reveal a reviewer's identity.

The journal should maintain a record of the decision letter and associated review reports in its editorial management system or equivalent secure records.

4.9. Revision and Resubmission Procedures

When a revision is requested, the editorial office shall provide the corresponding author with the decision letter, relevant reviewer comments, revision requirements, and deadline.

Authors should submit:

A revised manuscript;
A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments;
An indication of where substantive changes have been made; and
Any additional documents or data requested for legitimate editorial reasons.

The handling editor shall evaluate the completeness and adequacy of the response. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, assigned to other reviewers, or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature of the revision.

If reviewers disagree about the revised manuscript, the editor shall assess the reasons for the disagreement and determine whether additional review is necessary.

4.10. Handling Reviewer Delays and Unavailability

The editorial office shall monitor reviewer invitations and outstanding reports through the manuscript-management system or another documented procedure.

When a review is overdue, the editorial office may issue a reminder or ask the reviewer to confirm whether the review can still be completed. If the reviewer is unavailable, the editor may invite a replacement.

The journal should avoid repeated, excessive reminders and should communicate appropriately when delays materially affect the expected timeline.

The desire to shorten review times shall not justify an inadequately supported editorial decision.

4.11. Handling Conflicting Reviews

Where reviewers provide materially different recommendations, the handling editor shall evaluate the substance of the disagreement.

The editor should determine whether the differences concern scientific interpretation, methodological adequacy, relevance, ethical compliance, or matters of preference.

An additional independent review may be requested when it is likely to resolve a material uncertainty. Alternatively, the editor may reach a reasoned decision based on the manuscript and existing reviews when the evidence is sufficient.

The journal shall not resolve conflicting reviews through a simple majority vote without considering the substance and quality of the assessments.

4.12. Management of Conflicts of Interest

The journal shall implement practical procedures for identifying, declaring, and managing conflicts of interest among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Reviewers shall be asked to disclose relevant conflicts when responding to an invitation. Editors shall consider the disclosures and decide whether to proceed, introduce safeguards, or appoint another reviewer.

Where an editor has a conflict, the manuscript shall be reassigned to an independent editor. Where the Editor-in-Chief is conflicted or is the subject of a complaint, an alternative authorised person shall oversee the matter.

Material conflict-of-interest decisions and reassignments should be documented in the editorial record, while respecting confidentiality.

4.13. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

When a reviewer or editor identifies a credible ethical concern, the handling editor shall assess whether the matter requires clarification, further evidence, consultation with an expert, or referral under another IJASC policy.

The editor may pause the ordinary review process where necessary to investigate a material concern. The authors may be asked to provide explanations, supporting data, ethics approval documents, or other relevant information.

The journal shall distinguish between a question requiring clarification and a substantiated finding of misconduct. Any decision to reject, suspend, or otherwise act on a submission shall be proportionate to the evidence and consistent with the relevant policy.

4.14. Reviewer Delegation and Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers shall not transfer manuscripts to another person or permit unauthorised access to review materials without prior permission from the journal.

Reviewers shall also comply with IJASC's applicable policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Because manuscripts and review materials are confidential, reviewers must not upload them or identifiable portions of them to external AI systems where this would breach confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or the journal's applicable rules.

AI tools shall not replace the reviewer's own critical judgment, expertise, and accountability. Any permitted use must comply with the journal's policy and any applicable confidentiality or disclosure requirements.

Editors should assess reviewer reports for substantive quality and ethical compliance, without assuming that the use or non-use of an AI tool alone establishes the quality or integrity of a review.

4.15. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Personnel

When an editor, Editorial Board member, or editorial staff member submits a manuscript, the editorial office shall identify the submission as requiring independent handling.

The manuscript shall be assigned to an editor who is not conflicted and who has sufficient authority to manage the review process independently.

The submitting individual shall not participate in the reviewer selection, confidential editorial deliberations, or decision-making concerning their submission. System access and communications should be managed to protect the independence of the process.

The journal should maintain records documenting the independent assignment and the resulting editorial decision.

4.16. Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgement

IJASC may acknowledge reviewer contributions through certificates, annual lists, or other appropriate mechanisms.

Before publicly identifying reviewers, the journal shall consider their preferences and the confidentiality requirements of the applicable review model. Public acknowledgement shall not identify which reviewers assessed particular manuscripts unless the journal's declared policy permits that disclosure and the relevant conditions have been satisfied.

The editorial office should maintain appropriate records of reviewer service where practicable. Reviewer recognition shall be voluntary where public identification is involved and shall not be used to pressure reviewers to accept invitations.

4.17. Record Keeping and Data Protection

The journal shall maintain appropriate records of manuscript submissions, reviewer invitations, declarations of conflicts of interest, review reports, decisions, revisions, and relevant editorial correspondence.

Records shall be stored in the journal's authorised system or another secure location with access restricted to authorised personnel.

The editorial office shall take reasonable measures to protect records from unauthorised disclosure, loss, alteration, or misuse. Retention and disposal shall follow the journal's applicable record-management procedures and legal obligations.

Records may be consulted for legitimate quality assurance, appeals, complaints, or research-integrity investigations, subject to appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

4.18. Monitoring and Periodic Review

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial leadership shall periodically evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of the peer review process.

The review may consider:

Whether eligible manuscripts receive the review specified by policy;
The suitability and independence of selected reviewers;
Compliance with confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements;
The completeness and usefulness of review reports;
Timeliness of invitations, reviews, and editorial decisions;
The handling of revisions and appeals;
The management of suspected misconduct;
The consistency of public statements with actual review practices; and
Whether additional reviewer guidance or editorial training is needed.

The journal should use these findings to identify practical improvements. Quantitative indicators, such as review duration or the number of reviewers, shall be interpreted in context and shall not replace an assessment of review quality.

4.19. Policy Implementation and Revision

The Editor-in-Chief, in coordination with the editorial leadership, shall oversee implementation of this policy under the journal's approved governance arrangements.

The journal shall ensure that its Author Guidelines, reviewer instructions, editorial workflows, submission-system settings, and public policy statements remain consistent.

Material changes to the peer review model or procedures shall be approved by the appropriate authority and communicated transparently. The journal shall periodically review the policy to ensure that it continues to support impartial assessment, responsible reviewer conduct, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

References and Guidance

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices: Peer Review Processes. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

This policy is intended to ensure that IJASC's peer review process is fair, transparent, independent, and appropriate to the standards of agricultural sciences. Its effectiveness depends on consistent implementation by editors, reviewers, authors, and the editorial office.