Peer Review Policy

Journal of Agriculture and Animal Science employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality. Every submission undergoes an initial editorial check before being assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the process.

1. Submission & Initial Screening

  1. Editorial Check

    • Manuscripts are checked for fit with the journal’s scope, originality, completeness, ethical compliance, and formatting requirements.

    • Submissions lacking ethical statements (e.g., IRB approval, conflict-of-interest disclosures) or breaching journal policies may be desk-rejected.

  2. Assignment to Reviewers

    • The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor selects a minimum of two reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.

    • Invitations include an abstract, submission deadline (typically 2–3 weeks), and reviewer guidelines.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Timeliness: Confirm availability promptly and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

  • Objectivity & Expertise:

    • Evaluate the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, methodology, data integrity, and clarity of presentation.

    • Do not critique grammar or formatting—focus on conceptual and technical substance.

  • Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and data as privileged information; do not share or use unpublished material for personal gain.

  • Conflict of Interest: Decline to review any manuscript where personal, financial, or professional relationships could bias judgment.

  • Constructive Feedback: Provide clear, actionable comments to help authors improve their work.

  • Recommendation Categories:

    1. Accept as is

    2. Minor revisions (no further review after revision)

    3. Major revisions (re-review required)

    4. Reject with suggestions for future work

    5. Reject outright (serious methodological or ethical flaws)

3. Editor Responsibilities

  • Selection & Oversight:

    • Choose reviewers based on expertise, track record, and absence of conflicts.

    • Monitor progress and follow up on overdue reviews.

  • Decision-Making:

    • Weigh reviewer reports and may add editorial comments.

    • Make one of four decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

  • Ethical Integrity:

    • Ensure no paper is published with undisclosed conflicts of interest, plagiarism, or data fabrication.

    • Manage corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern according to COPE guidelines.

  • Communication:

    • Provide authors with consolidated feedback and clear instructions for revision.

    • Maintain author anonymity during the review process.

4. Author Responsibilities

  • Revision & Response:

    • Revise the manuscript thoroughly in accordance with reviewer and editor comments.

    • Submit a point-by-point response letter detailing changes made or rebuttals to each comment.

  • Ethical Compliance:

    • Disclose any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

    • Confirm originality and declare if any part of the work has been published or is under consideration elsewhere.

  • Timeliness:

    • Submit revisions by the deadline (usually 2–4 weeks).

    • Communicate promptly with the editorial office if more time is needed.

5. Confidentiality & Ethics

  • Reviewers and editors must treat all manuscript content, data, and correspondence as confidential.

  • No party may use unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage.

  • Any suspected ethical breaches (plagiarism, fraud) are investigated and may lead to rejection or retraction.

By adhering to this rigorous double-blind peer review policy, Agrimals ensures the publication of high-quality, ethically sound research that advances the fields of agriculture and animal science.