Peer Review & Ethics

The International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology (IJARIT) maintains rigorous peer-review standards to safeguard scientific quality, originality, and integrity. All submitted manuscripts undergo a comprehensive evaluation process before publication.

1. Peer Review Model

IJARIT employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process: The identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept strictly confidential throughout the evaluation process. Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are properly anonymized (removing author names, affiliations, and explicit self-identifying references within the text and file metadata).

2. Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

Initial Desk Screening: Upon submission, the Managing Editor conducts an initial evaluation for scope alignment, formatting compliance, and automated plagiarism screening (using Turnitin/iThenticate). Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards or fall outside the journal's scope are rejected at this stage without external review. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15% (excluding references and standard methods) will be returned for revision or rejected during initial desk screening.

Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field of agricultural science.

Review Evaluation: Reviewers assess the manuscript for scientific soundness, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, originality, significance of the findings, and ethical compliance.

Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports, the Handling Editor/Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following final decisions:

Accept without Revision: The manuscript is accepted in its current form.
Minor Revisions Required: The manuscript is acceptable pending minor technical or textual adjustments.
Major Revisions Required: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and additional data analysis or restructuring, followed by a second round of peer review.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuited for publication due to scientific flaws, lack of novelty, or major ethical issues.

Flowchart of peer reviewing: 

[Manuscript Submission] ► [Initial Desk Review] ► (Fails scope / high plagiarism) ► [Desk Reject] 

[Desk Accept] ► [Assigned to Executive / Managing Editor] │ ► [External Double-Blind Peer Review] (Minimum 2 Independent Experts) │ ► [Editorial Decision] ► Accept / Revisions / Reject

3. Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities

All peer reviewers for IJARIT are expected to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:

Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript data or ideas prior to publication.
Prohibition of AI Processing: Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts into generative AI platforms or public LLM tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for summary or critique generation, as this violates manuscript confidentiality and copyright.
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline an invitation if they have any financial, commercial, collaborative, or personal connections with any of the authors or institutions involved.
Objectivity & Constructive Feedback: Reviews must be conducted objectively without personal bias or ad hominem comments. Critique should be supported by clear reasoning and scientific literature.
Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within the agreed timeframe (typically 3 to 4 weeks). If delays arise, reviewers must notify the editorial office immediately.

Submissions authored by members of the Editorial Board undergo the exact same double-blind peer review process and are handled by an independent Editor to avoid any conflict of interest.

4. Review Timelines & Transparency

Time to First Decision: Average 21–30 days from submission.
Time to Final Publication: Average 60–90 days (depending on author revision turnaround).
Appeals: Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected due to a scientific misunderstanding or reviewer error may submit a formal written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, detailing their scientific rebuttals point-by-point. Appeals are evaluated by an independent Editorial Board member.