Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

Agricultural and Biotechnological Reflections (ABR) is committed to publishing high-quality research that contributes to the advancement of agriculture and biotechnology. To maintain rigorous academic standards, the journal adheres to a robust peer review process, ensuring that every article submitted for publication is evaluated by qualified and impartial experts in the field.

2. Peer Review Process

ABR follows a double-blind peer review process. In this model:

  • Authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers.
  • Reviewers' identities are concealed from the authors.

This ensures unbiased and objective evaluations of submitted manuscripts, fostering academic integrity and transparency in the decision-making process.

3. Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

  • Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and overall quality.
  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two or more independent peer reviewers for evaluation.
  • The editorial team reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the journal's standards at any stage of the review process.

4. Criteria for Peer Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality: Does the manuscript present novel and significant findings?
  • Scientific rigor: Are the research methods sound and appropriate for the study?
  • Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript clearly written and well-structured?
  • Relevance: Does the research contribute to the field of agricultural and biotechnological sciences?
  • Ethical standards: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines, including proper citation practices, data integrity, and respect for human and animal rights in research?
  • Quality of references: Are the citations comprehensive, relevant, and up-to-date?

Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback to authors to improve the quality of their work.

5. Types of Decisions

Following the peer review, the editorial team makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revision.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is accepted, subject to minor revisions that can be addressed by the author without further peer review.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes. Authors are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in ABR.

In the case of major revisions, the manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for further evaluation.

6. Confidentiality

All reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process. They must not disclose the contents of the manuscript, or any part of it, to any third parties or use the information for personal gain. Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review request.

7. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to:

  • Financial interests in the manuscript's subject.
  • Professional relationships with the authors.
  • Any other factors that may influence impartiality.

The editorial team will handle any conflicts of interest with transparency and fairness, and reviewers may be excluded from reviewing a manuscript if a conflict is identified.

8. Reviewer Feedback

The feedback provided by reviewers will be forwarded to the authors in the form of constructive comments and suggestions for improvement. Reviewers' comments are expected to be clear, respectful, and professional, aimed at helping authors improve the quality of their research.

9. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The journal ensures a diverse pool of reviewers with experience in agricultural and biotechnological sciences. The journal also aims to balance geographical, institutional, and gender diversity among reviewers.

10. Open Peer Review (Optional)

ABR allows for an optional open peer review model where authors can choose to make the names of reviewers public. This provides additional transparency in the review process and helps build trust in the peer review system. Authors may choose this option when submitting their manuscript.

11. Publication Ethics

ABR adheres to ethical publishing practices and aligns with the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to act with integrity and professionalism throughout the publication process.

12. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge the contributions of peer reviewers, ABR provides certificates of review for those who participate in the peer review process. Additionally, the names of reviewers who have contributed to the journal’s success are listed in the annual reviewer acknowledgments.

13. Appeals Process

If authors disagree with the editorial decision (e.g., rejection or the requirement for major revisions), they may appeal the decision in writing. The appeal will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be made.

14. Policy Review

This peer review policy will be reviewed periodically and updated to ensure it remains aligned with best practices in academic publishing.