Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy for the Journal of Environmental Agriculture and Agroecosystem Management (JEAAM)
The Journal of Environmental Agriculture and Agroecosystem Management (JEAAM) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and fairness of the review process. In a double-blind review, both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Process Overview:
- Initial Manuscript Screening:
Upon submission, the manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office to ensure it fits the journal's scope and complies with submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards may be rejected at this stage.
- Assignment to Editors:
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a subject editor, who oversees the peer review process and identifies suitable reviewers based on their expertise.
- Selection of Reviewers:
The editor invites two or more independent experts in the relevant field to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their subject matter expertise and their ability to provide objective and constructive feedback.
- Double-Blind Review:
In the double-blind process:
Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers.
Reviewers’ identities are also kept confidential from the authors.
This ensures that the review is unbiased and based solely on the manuscript’s content.
- Review Criteria: Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
Originality and significance of the research.
Clarity of presentation and structure.
Adequacy of the methodology and experimental design.
Accuracy of the data analysis and interpretation.
Relevance of conclusions and recommendations.
Adequacy of references and literature review.
Ethical standards and appropriate acknowledgment of sources.
- Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers will provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept without changes: The manuscript is ready for publication with no modifications.
Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions are made.
Major revisions required: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be reconsidered.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JEAAM.
- Author Revision:
If revisions are required, the authors will be asked to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review to ensure the changes are satisfactory.
- Final Decision:
Based on the reviewers' feedback and the authors' revisions, the editor will make the final decision on whether the manuscript is accepted, rejected, or requires further revisions.
The final decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments.
Review Timeframe:
JEAAM aims to complete the peer review process within 4 to 8 weeks from the date of submission. However, this may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript and the availability of reviewers.
Confidentiality:
Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts as confidential documents and should not discuss or share them with others outside the review process.
Ethical Considerations:
Reviewers are expected to disclose any conflicts of interest that might affect their impartiality. If a reviewer feels unable to provide an objective review, they should inform the editor and recuse themselves from the process.
Appeal Process:
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. If they believe that a decision was made unfairly, they can submit an appeal letter detailing their reasons. The editorial board will review the appeal and may request additional opinions from external reviewers before making a final decision.
