Peer Review Process

AgroTalk: Journal of Agricultural Science implements a double-blind peer review process involving authors, editors, section editors, and reviewers. The review process is designed to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of each submitted manuscript.

1. Initial Evaluation

Every manuscript submitted to AgroTalk is first screened by the Editorial Team to ensure that it meets the journal’s Focus and Scope and complies with the Author Guidelines. During this stage, the editor evaluates:

• Relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s focus and scope;
• Adherence to journal formatting and submission guidelines;
• Plagiarism level (checked using plagiarism detection tools, with a maximum similarity threshold of 20%).

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be returned to the authors for revision or rejected without external review.

2. Peer Review Assignment

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to a Section Editor who appoints at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic of the paper. AgroTalk uses a double-blind review system where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain confidentiality and objectivity.

3. Review Duration and Evaluation Criteria

Each reviewer is given approximately 2–3 weeks to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and novelty of the research
• Scientific quality, clarity, and structure of the writing
• Soundness of the methodology and data analysis
• Relevance and significance of the results
• Accuracy and completeness of references
• Contribution to agricultural science and innovation

Reviewers provide recommendations as one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Resubmit after major revisions
• Reject (not suitable for publication)

4. Author Revision

Authors who receive reviewer feedback must revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments. Revised manuscripts must be re-submitted within the specified timeframe (usually 2 weeks for minor revisions and 4 weeks for major revisions). Authors are required to provide a detailed Response Letter addressing each reviewer comment.

5. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on the recommendations from the reviewers and Section Editor. The decision may include acceptance, further revision, or rejection. The final accepted version will undergo copy-editing, layout editing, and proofreading before publication.

6. Review Timeline

The average time from manuscript submission to initial editorial decision is approximately 2 weeks, while the total peer review and publication process generally takes around 6–10 weeks depending on the response time of authors and reviewers.

7. Ethical Guidelines

The review process in AgroTalk follows the ethical standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors and reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit without regard to race, gender, or institutional affiliation.