Peer Review Process

The Journal of Tropical Agro-Environmental (JTAE) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and relevance of all published articles. This document outlines the steps involved in the peer review process.

1. Initial Submission and Screening

1.1 Submission

  • Authors submit manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system.

  • All required components, including the manuscript, cover letter, and ethical declarations, must be included.

1.2 Editorial Screening

  • The editorial office conducts an initial review to check for:

    • Adherence to journal guidelines (format, word count, references, etc.).

    • Plagiarism using detection software.

    • Relevance to the journal’s scope.

  • Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected outright.

2. Peer Review Assignment

2.1 Reviewer Selection

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.

  • Reviewers are selected based on:

    • Subject matter expertise.

    • Absence of conflicts of interest.

    • Availability to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe.

2.2 Double-Blind Process

  • JTAE employs a double-blind peer review process:

    • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

    • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

3. Review Process

3.1 Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are expected to provide:

    • An objective and constructive evaluation of the manuscript.

    • Feedback on the originality, scientific validity, methodology, and relevance of the research.

    • Recommendations for improvement.

3.2 Review Timeline

  • Reviewers are given 2-4 weeks to complete their evaluation.

  • Extensions may be granted upon request.

3.3 Review Outcomes

  • Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

    • Accept: Manuscript is suitable for publication with minor or no revisions.

    • Minor Revisions: Requires slight modifications before acceptance.

    • Major Revisions: Requires substantial changes and re-evaluation.

    • Reject: Not suitable for publication.

4. Editorial Decision

4.1 Decision-Making

  • The editor considers reviewers’ recommendations and makes one of the following decisions:

    • Accept

    • Revise and Resubmit

    • Reject

  • For conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be consulted.

4.2 Communication with Authors

  • Authors receive:

    • Reviewers’ comments (anonymized).

    • Editor’s decision and guidance on next steps.

5. Revision and Resubmission

5.1 Author Revisions

  • Authors must address all reviewers’ and editors’ comments in a point-by-point response letter.

  • Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within the stipulated timeline.

5.2 Second Round of Review

  • Major revisions may undergo a second round of peer review to ensure concerns have been addressed adequately.

6. Final Decision and Publication

6.1 Final Decision

  • The editor makes the final decision based on:

    • Revised manuscript quality.

    • Reviewers’ feedback.

6.2 Proofreading

  • Accepted manuscripts undergo language editing and formatting.

  • Authors are provided proofs for final approval before publication.

6.3 Online Publication

  • Once approved, the article is published online in the next available issue.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Compliance

  • All aspects of the peer review process are confidential.

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.

  • Ethical concerns raised during the review process are addressed in accordance with JTAE’s ethical policies.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a written explanation. Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be communicated.