Editorial and Peer Review Processes

The Journal of Research in Agriculture and Food Sciences (JRAFS) follows a structured and ethical editorial and peer-review process designed to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, consistently, and according to appropriate scientific and publishing standards.

The journal's editorial and peer-review practices are informed by internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing, including relevant recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other recognized publishing standards applicable to the journal.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.

The assessment considers:

• Compliance with the journal's aims and scope;

• Compliance with the Instructions for Authors and submission requirements;

• Completeness of the submission, including required metadata, declarations, figures, and supplementary materials;

• Compliance with applicable ethical and research-integrity requirements;

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution; and

• Basic scientific quality, organization, and presentation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may be rejected without external peer review.

2. External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to an appropriate editor for external peer review.

JRAFS uses a double-blind peer-review process. Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

Under the double-blind model:

• Reviewers are not informed of the identities of the authors; and

• Authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the nature of the submission and may consider:

• Originality and scholarly significance;

• Scientific and methodological rigor;

• Validity and reliability of the results;

• Appropriateness of data analysis and statistics, where applicable;

• Clarity and organization of the manuscript;

• Relevance and adequacy of the discussion;

• Appropriateness of references; and

• Validity and consistency of the conclusions.

Further details are provided in the journal's Peer Review Policy.

3. Editorial Decision

Following external peer review, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript, the reviewers' reports, and other relevant editorial considerations.

Possible decisions include:

• Accept;

• Minor Revision;

• Major Revision; or

• Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor, based on scholarly merit, peer-review evidence, and the journal's scientific and ethical standards.

4. Revision and Re-evaluation

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. A revised version of the manuscript; and

2. A detailed response to the reviewers' comments explaining how each point has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling editor and, where appropriate, returned to the original reviewers or sent to new reviewers.

Additional rounds of revision or further peer review may be requested when necessary. A manuscript may ultimately be rejected if substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, or other concerns remain unresolved.

5. Acceptance and Production

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the editorial process has been completed and the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor determines that it meets the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements.

Following acceptance, the article proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

• Copyediting and language or presentation checks;

• Reference and citation verification;

• Formatting and preparation for publication;

• Author review of proofs; and

• Correction of identified production or formatting errors before publication.

Acceptance does not preclude the editorial office from requesting necessary clarifications or corrections during production.

6. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related editorial and peer-review communications are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not disclose or use confidential information obtained during the evaluation of a manuscript except as authorized by the journal and for legitimate editorial purposes.

The identities of authors and reviewers are protected in accordance with the journal's double-blind peer-review procedures. Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed where individuals identify one another independently through the manuscript or other circumstances.

7. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently on the basis of the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript. The publisher, commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, or other external considerations must not influence editorial decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the journal's editorial content and publication decisions.