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. For policies on authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct, see the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.
1. Peer Review Model
IJARIT employs a double-blind peer review process: the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout evaluation. Authors must ensure submitted manuscripts are properly anonymized, removing author names, affiliations, and other self-identifying references from both the manuscript text and file metadata.
2. Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow
- Initial Desk Screening: The Executive Editor evaluates each submission for scope alignment, formatting compliance, and similarity screening (Turnitin/iThenticate). Manuscripts with an overall similarity index exceeding 15% (excluding references and standard methodology phrasing), or that fall outside the journal's scope, are returned for revision or rejected at this stage without external review.
- Reviewer Selection & Assignment: Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise and an active publication record in the manuscript's field.
- Review Evaluation: Reviewers assess scientific soundness, methodological rigor, clarity, originality, significance of findings, and ethical compliance.
- Reconciling Reviewer Disagreement: Where two reviewers reach substantially different recommendations, the Handling Editor either seeks an evaluation from a third independent reviewer or makes a reasoned editorial decision informed by both reports, documented in the internal review record.
- Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the Executive Editor or Editor-in-Chief issues one of the following decisions:
- Accept without Revision
- Minor Revisions Required
- Major Revisions Required (followed by a second round of review)
- Reject
Workflow: Submission → Editorial screening → Plagiarism check → Reviewer selection → Double-blind review → Revision → Second review where necessary → Final editorial decision → Copyediting → Production → Publication.
Submissions authored by members of the Editorial Board undergo the same double-blind review process and are handled independently by an editor with no conflict of interest, in line with the conflict-of-interest policy in the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.
3. Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities
Peer reviewers are expected to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, including:
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used prior to publication.
- No AI Processing of Manuscripts: Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts to generative AI platforms or public LLM tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok) to generate summaries or critiques, as this breaches manuscript confidentiality and copyright.
- Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline an invitation where a financial, commercial, collaborative, or personal connection exists with any author or institution involved.
- Objectivity: Reviews must be free of personal bias or ad hominem comment, with critique supported by clear reasoning and relevant literature.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe (typically 3–4 weeks) and must notify the editorial office promptly if a delay arises.
Review reports and decision records are retained by the journal for audit purposes and to support any subsequent appeal.
4. Review Timelines
- Time to First Decision: Average 21–30 days from submission.
- Time to Final Publication: Average 60–90 days, depending on author revision turnaround.
For the process to appeal an editorial decision, see the Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.
[Last updated: 1 September 2026]

