Peer Review Policy

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and ensures that only high-quality, scientifically sound research is published. The Journal of Research in Agriculture and Food Sciences (JRAFS) employs a rigorous and impartial peer review process to maintain academic integrity and uphold the journal’s high standards.

1. Initial Manuscript Evaluation

All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor to assess their suitability for the journal.
Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they:

• Lack originality or scientific merit,

• Contain significant methodological or ethical issues,

• Are poorly written or unclear in English, or

• Fall outside the scope and aims of JRAFS.

Manuscripts meeting the journal’s criteria are forwarded for external peer review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

2. Type of Peer Review

JRAFS follows a double-blind peer review process:

• The identities of both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

• This ensures an unbiased and fair evaluation based solely on the scientific content of the manuscript.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and publication record in the subject area of the manuscript.
The editorial office maintains an updated database of qualified reviewers to ensure appropriate matching between manuscript topics and reviewer expertise.

4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research,

• Soundness of methodology and experimental design,

• Adherence to appropriate ethical standards,

• Clarity and accuracy of data presentation,

• Validity of results and conclusions, and

• Proper citation and acknowledgment of relevant prior work.

While language correction is not part of the formal peer review, reviewers may offer suggestions for improving readability or clarity where necessary.

5. Review Process and Timeline

The duration of the peer review process may vary depending on the responsiveness of reviewers.
In cases where:

• Reviewer reports significantly differ, or

• A review is delayed beyond a reasonable timeframe,
  an additional expert may be invited to provide an independent opinion.

After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the editor compiles the recommendations and communicates a decision to the corresponding author. Reviewers’ comments are usually provided verbatim to assist authors in revising their manuscripts.

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.

6. Final Decision

The final decision on a manuscript—acceptance, revision, or rejection—is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the overall scientific quality of the paper.

The Editor’s decision is final.