Peer Review Process

International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science (IJRAFS) employs a structured, rigorous and transparent peer-review process that ensures the integrity of the academic process, as well as the quality of the research and the fair assessment of submitted manuscripts. The journal intends to see that manuscripts are judged against the criteria of scholarly interest, originality, methodological rigor and appropriateness for publication.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Each manuscript is initially assessed by the editorial office after submission. The initial evaluation is based on whether it:

Falls within the scope and aims of IJRAFS
Takes the Journal's submission guidelines into account
Shows good academic and scientific relevance
Adheres to pertinent ethical and publication guidelines
Can be reviewed by others for further evaluation

This initial screening helps ensure alignment with the journal's standards before full peer review.

Ethical & Integrity Screening

Academic and ethical standards are rigorously checked during the editorial process. The journal will not accept research involving plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, redundant publication, or other integrity violations.

When ethical concerns arise, the editorial office seeks clarification and takes appropriate action according to its Ethical Standards.

Double-Blind Peer Review

IJRAFS is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal where both the author and reviewers' identities remain hidden throughout the review process.

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent to independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate submissions objectively based on scholarly and scientific quality, independent of the authors' background or institutional affiliation.

The review focuses on:

Originality & relevance of research
Relevance to the scope of the Journal
Research design and methodological soundness
Quality and validity of results
Clarity of presentation
Appropriateness of interpretations and conclusions
Relevance of supporting evidence
Adherence to relevant ethical standards

Both authors and reviewers must treat the double-blind review system with strict confidentiality.

Recommendations & Decisions

Reviewers provide comments and recommendations, suggesting:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor makes the final publication decision based on reviewer reports and overall suitability.

Revision Process

Upon receiving a revision request, authors must carefully address reviewer comments and submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each comment was addressed. Updated versions may undergo further review if needed.

Transparency and Fairness

IJRAFS ensures an equitable and uniform review process by upholding that:

Submissions are judged strictly on academic and scientific value.
The double-blind review process is maintained appropriately.
Reviewers deliver critical, objective, and constructive feedback.
Potential conflicts of interest are properly disclosed.
All reviews and editorial decisions are conducted with confidentiality and independence.
Authors receive adequate opportunities to respond to reviewer comments.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal detailing factual and/or procedural matters for reconsideration. The editorial team evaluates each appeal on a case-by-case basis.

Complaints regarding publication ethics, peer review, authorship, or research integrity are handled in strict accordance with the journal's publication policies.