Peer Review and Reviewer Policy
Peer Review and Reviewer Policy
The Journal of Agricultural Policy and Transformation (AgriPaT) is committed to a fair, rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process. Peer review helps ensure that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, methodological soundness, scholarly relevance, research integrity, and a meaningful contribution to agricultural policy and related disciplines.
AgriPaT follows a double-blind peer-review process for manuscripts considered for external review. All submissions, including invited contributions and manuscripts submitted to special issues, are subject to appropriate editorial assessment and peer review before publication.
1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Screening
All manuscripts must be submitted through AgriPaT’s online submission system and comply with the journal’s Author Guidelines and publication ethics policies.
The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether a submission is suitable for further consideration. This assessment covers:
- Scope and relevance: Alignment with AgriPaT’s aims and scope.
- Originality and contribution: Novelty, significance, and relevance to agricultural policy and transformation.
- Scientific quality: Basic methodological soundness, appropriate analysis, and the credibility of the research.
- Presentation and compliance: Adherence to submission requirements, manuscript structure, and ethical declarations.
- Research integrity: Similarity screening using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism-detection software, alongside checks for potential ethical concerns.
The editorial team may return manuscripts for technical corrections or reject submissions that do not meet the journal’s requirements. Manuscripts passing the initial screening proceed to external peer review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
AgriPaT uses a double-blind review system in which authors and reviewers are not informed of each other’s identities during the review process.
Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, the editorial office checks the review files to ensure that identifying information has been removed. Authors should submit identifying details, including names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and contact information, separately from the anonymised main manuscript. Identifying information should also be removed from document properties and other file metadata where possible. The editorial office may return files for correction if anonymisation is incomplete.
Manuscripts that pass these checks are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, validity of conclusions, contribution to knowledge, clarity, and ethical compliance.
AgriPaT takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the process. Authors and reviewers must not attempt to identify one another or disclose confidential review-related information.
3. Editorial Decisions
The Editor-in-Chief, with appropriate support from the Managing Editor and Editor, oversees the review process and ensures that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, the reviewers’ assessments, the journal’s scope, and applicable ethical standards.
Possible decisions include:
- Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, editorial, and ethical standards.
- Minor Revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision.
- Major Revision: Substantial revisions are necessary, and further peer review may be required.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or is unsuitable for publication.
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other experts. Failure to address substantive concerns adequately may result in further revision or rejection.
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision, subject to the conflict-of-interest provisions outlined below.
4. Review Timeline
AgriPaT aims to complete the peer-review process in approximately 4–8 weeks from submission. This is an indicative timeframe rather than a guarantee. Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, and the time authors take to respond.
The editorial team endeavours to communicate decisions and progress to authors in a timely manner.
5. Editors’ Submissions and Conflicts of Interest
Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, or another person involved in editorial decision-making are subject to the same standards of originality, quality, ethics, and external peer review as other submissions.
An editor who is an author, has a competing interest, or is otherwise unable to assess a manuscript impartially must not participate in its editorial handling or decision. Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor or an appropriately qualified editorial board member who has no relevant conflict of interest. Where necessary, an independent editor from outside the authors’ institution may be appointed. The submitting editor must not influence reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer identities or reports beyond what is necessary for their own author role, or participate in the publication decision.
Special-issue manuscripts: Submissions authored or co-authored by a guest editor must not be handled or decided upon by that guest editor. They must be managed by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and must undergo the journal’s normal independent peer-review process. Where the Editor-in-Chief or another designated editor has a conflict, an alternative independent decision-maker must be appointed.
These safeguards apply regardless of the manuscript’s subject, invited status, or intended issue.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of research published in AgriPaT. Reviewers are expected to:
- Assess scientific and methodological rigour: Evaluate the research design, theoretical framework, methods, data analysis, interpretation, and validity of conclusions.
- Evaluate originality and contribution: Assess the manuscript’s novelty, significance, and contribution to agricultural policy and related disciplines.
- Provide constructive feedback: Identify strengths and weaknesses and offer clear, specific, evidence-based recommendations for improvement.
- Assess the use of evidence and citations: Identify relevant literature that may have been overlooked and report suspected plagiarism, inappropriate citation practices, or redundant publication.
- Maintain confidentiality: Treat manuscripts, supplementary materials, and review communications as confidential and never use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
- Declare conflicts of interest: Disclose actual or potential conflicts before accepting a review assignment and decline the assignment where impartiality may be compromised.
- Observe ethical and professional standards: Conduct reviews objectively, respectfully, and without discriminatory language, personal criticism, or inappropriate influence.
- Meet agreed deadlines: Submit review reports within the agreed review period or promptly inform the editorial office if additional time is needed.
Reviewers should distinguish essential revisions required for scientific validity from optional suggestions. They should provide a clear recommendation supported by their assessment. Recommendations assist the editorial team but do not determine the final editorial decision.
7. Confidentiality and Review Conduct
Reviewers must not share manuscripts or review materials with unauthorised persons, disclose their review assignment, or contact authors directly about a manuscript under review. Any suspected ethical misconduct, undisclosed conflict, or concern about research integrity should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to external artificial intelligence systems or other third-party tools where doing so could compromise confidentiality, privacy, or intellectual property. Any permitted use of tools must comply with the journal’s applicable policies and must not replace the reviewer’s independent professional judgement.
8. Ethical Standards and Editorial Independence
AgriPaT expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold academic integrity, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and responsible scholarly publishing.
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, and ethical compliance, without discrimination or inappropriate commercial, financial, institutional, or personal influence. Suspected breaches of publication ethics are handled in accordance with the journal’s relevant ethics and publication policies.
9. Final Decision and Publication
Following completion of peer review and any required revisions, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, taking into account the reviewers’ reports, editorial assessments, the authors’ responses, and relevant ethical considerations.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, and publication under AgriPaT’s editorial procedures and open-access policy.
10. Reviewer Selection, Deadlines, Appeals and Records
Reviewer selection: The handling (section) editor selects reviewers for subject expertise, publication record and absence of conflicts (no shared institution or recent co-authorship with the authors). Authors may suggest reviewers; the editor is not bound by the suggestions.
Deadlines: Reviewers are invited to submit reports within 14 days, with an extension of up to 7 days on request. Authors normally submit revisions within 30 days (major revision) or 14 days (minor revision). Revised manuscripts may go back to the original reviewers or to a new reviewer.
Alternative decision-maker: If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict, the Managing Editor decides. If both are conflicted, the publisher appoints an external editor.
Appeals: Authors may appeal a decision in writing within two weeks, as set out in Section 7 of the Ethics, Integrity and Retraction Policy. An editor not involved in the original decision considers the appeal.
Rejected manuscripts: Reviews of rejected manuscripts remain confidential. A rejected manuscript may be resubmitted only as a new submission with a response to the reviewers’ points.
Records: Reviewer reports, decision letters and dates are kept in the editorial system and can be produced for audit.
11. Policy application
This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to AgriPaT, including regular submissions, invited contributions, and special-issue manuscripts. All participants in the editorial process are expected to follow its requirements.
