Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Research in Agriculture and Food Sciences (JRAFS) uses a rigorous, fair, and confidential double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Peer review is an essential component of the journal's editorial process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and are not influenced by authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor before external peer review.

The initial assessment considers:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of JRAFS;

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution;

• Scientific quality and methodological appropriateness;

• Compliance with ethical and research-integrity requirements;

• Adequacy of manuscript presentation and structure; and

• Compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection) when it:

• Falls outside the journal's scope;

• Lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;

• Contains fundamental scientific or methodological deficiencies;

• Raises significant ethical or research-integrity concerns;

• Does not meet essential submission requirements; or

• Is not considered suitable for external peer review based on its overall quality or relevance.

A desk rejection does not necessarily indicate that the research is scientifically invalid. It may reflect the manuscript's scope, suitability, priority, or compliance with the journal's requirements.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JRAFS follows a double-blind peer-review model in which:

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers; and

• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

Authors should ensure that the manuscript and supplementary materials intended for reviewers do not unnecessarily reveal their identities or institutional affiliations.

The journal makes reasonable efforts to maintain anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed if authors or reviewers identify one another independently through the manuscript, citations, prior knowledge, or other circumstances.

3. Selection and Number of Reviewers

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor based on considerations including:

• Relevant subject-matter expertise;

• Research and publication experience;

• Methodological expertise, where appropriate;

• Reviewing experience and reliability;

• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest; and

• Availability to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe.

The journal avoids selecting reviewers who have current or recent professional, institutional, personal, financial, or collaborative relationships with the authors that could compromise the impartiality of the review.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but the journal is not obligated to use them. Suggested reviewers are independently assessed by the editorial team before any invitation is issued.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities and Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, reviewers may be asked to evaluate:

• Originality and novelty;

• Scientific significance and relevance;

• Research questions or objectives;

• Methodological and experimental or analytical design;

• Data quality and presentation;

• Statistical analysis, where applicable;

• Validity and consistency of the results and conclusions;

• Interpretation of findings;

• Adequacy and relevance of references;

• Compliance with applicable ethical and research-integrity requirements; and

• Overall clarity, organization, and scientific presentation.

Reviewers may suggest improvements to language, structure, tables, figures, and presentation. Their primary responsibility, however, is to assess the scientific and scholarly quality of the manuscript rather than provide comprehensive language editing.

Reviews must be professional and must not contain personal, discriminatory, hostile, defamatory, or offensive comments.

5. Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to JRAFS are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with others without authorization from the editorial office;

• Use unpublished information, data, methods, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;

• Contact authors directly about the manuscript without permission from the editorial office; or

• Disclose their reviewer identity to the authors during the review process.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality before, during, and after completion of the review.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, the objectivity of their assessment.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when they have a significant personal, professional, financial, institutional, or collaborative relationship with the authors or another interest that could reasonably influence their judgment.

If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during the review process, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may replace the reviewer.

Editors and Editorial Board members are also required to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest and should not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

7. Editorial Decisions

After receiving the required peer-review reports, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' assessments and other relevant editorial considerations.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes;

• Minor Revision – limited revisions are required before a final decision;

• Major Revision – substantial revisions are required and further external review may be necessary; or

• Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in JRAFS.

Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the editorial process but are advisory rather than automatically determinative. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or appropriately designated editor.

8. Disagreement Between Reviewers

Reviewers may reach different conclusions regarding a manuscript. Disagreement between reviewers does not automatically result in acceptance or rejection.

When reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may:

• Evaluate the manuscript and existing reviewer reports and make a decision based on the available evidence;

• Seek clarification from the reviewers;

• Invite an additional independent reviewer; or

• Request a revised manuscript before making a final decision.

The editor remains responsible for ensuring that the final decision is based on a fair and informed assessment.

9. Delayed or Unavailable Reviewers

The journal makes reasonable efforts to obtain timely peer reviews. If an invited reviewer declines, becomes unavailable, or does not complete the review within a reasonable period, the editorial office may invite another qualified reviewer.

Peer-review timelines may therefore vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional assessment.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a specific peer-review duration.

10. Revision and Re-review

When revisions are requested, authors should respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and provide a clear explanation of the changes made.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

The editor may request more than one round of revision when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.

11. Editorial Independence and Final Decision

The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Editors are not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation when there are reasonable academic, methodological, ethical, or editorial grounds for reaching a different decision.

A manuscript may be rejected despite favorable reviewer reports if significant concerns regarding scientific validity, methodology, ethics, authorship, plagiarism, research integrity, or other publishing standards are identified.

Editorial decisions are expected to be independent, fair, consistent, and based on scholarly merit.

12. Confidentiality of Editorial Deliberations

Communications between editors and reviewers concerning a manuscript are confidential.

Reviewer identities and confidential comments intended solely for the editor are not disclosed to authors. Reviewer reports intended for authors may be shared with authors as part of the editorial decision.

The editorial office may remove inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, discriminatory, or otherwise unsuitable material from a reviewer report while preserving the substantive scientific assessment.

13. Exceptions to Standard External Peer Review

Research articles, review articles, and other scholarly manuscripts requiring substantive scientific evaluation are subject to external peer review in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

Certain non-research content, such as editorials, announcements, corrections, or other material that does not require external scientific evaluation, may be assessed through an appropriate editorial review process instead.

The applicable review process is determined by the Editor-in-Chief according to the type and purpose of the submission.

14. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable problem in the review process may submit an appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals must clearly explain the grounds for the appeal and provide relevant supporting information.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Decisions based solely on the editor's assessment of a manuscript's suitability, priority, or scientific merit are generally not grounds for appeal unless a substantive factual or procedural error can be demonstrated.

15. Commitment to Fair and Ethical Peer Review

JRAFS is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, confidential, and ethical peer-review process that protects the integrity of authors, reviewers, editors, and the scientific record.

The journal periodically reviews its peer-review procedures and may update them when necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards and best practices.