Peer View Policy

Stages:

  1. Editorial Screening

    • Manuscripts are reviewed for relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, formatting, completeness, and ethical compliance.

    • Submissions may undergo plagiarism and similarity screening before being sent for peer review.

    • The editorial team may reject manuscripts at this stage if they do not meet the journal's basic academic or submission requirements.

  2. Double-Blind Peer Review

    • Eligible manuscripts are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in agriculture, rural development, food security, or related fields.

    • The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

    • Reviewers assess manuscripts for originality, academic quality, methodological soundness, clarity, relevance, research integrity, and contribution to the field.

    • Where appropriate, reviewers also evaluate the validity of research methods, data analysis, results, conclusions, and practical or policy implications.

  3. Editorial Decision

    • Based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment, manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

      • Accept

      • Minor Revision

      • Major Revision

      • Reject

Review Time:

  • The journal aims to complete the initial editorial assessment and peer-review process within approximately 2–4 weeks, although the actual timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions, and other editorial requirements.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and the review process.

  • Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased comments to assist authors in improving their work.

  • Evaluate manuscripts based on their originality, scholarly quality, relevance, methodology, research integrity, and contribution to agriculture, rural development, food security, or related disciplines.

  • Identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data concerns, conflicts of interest, or other ethical issues.

  • Avoid using or disclosing unpublished information obtained through the review process.

  • Declare any conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality or objectivity of the review.