Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Agribusiness and Social Sciences (JASS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and ethical peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. As an open-access, peer-reviewed journal, JASS follows internationally recognized publication ethics and best practices, including the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system and ensure compliance with JASS Author Guidelines, formatting requirements, and publication ethics policies.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team to determine their suitability for peer review. The screening evaluates:

  • Scope and Relevance: Alignment with the journal's aims and scope, including agribusiness, agricultural economics, rural development, social sciences, and related interdisciplinary fields.
  • Originality and Contribution: Novelty, significance, and relevance to the advancement of knowledge in the journal's areas of interest.
  • Scientific and Scholarly Quality: Basic methodological soundness, analytical rigor, and research integrity.
  • Formatting and Compliance: Adherence to submission guidelines and applicable ethical requirements.
  • Similarity Screening: Assessment using Turnitin or an equivalent similarity-detection system.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to authors for correction or rejected without external review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

JASS follows a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

  • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
  • Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodological rigor, data analysis, interpretation of findings, contribution to knowledge, clarity of presentation, and ethical compliance.
  • Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommend one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

The editorial office takes reasonable measures to maintain reviewer and author anonymity throughout the review process.

4. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Managing Editor or other authorized editorial members, evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes the editorial decision.

The possible decisions are:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific, scholarly, editorial, and ethical standards.
  • Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final decision.
  • Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may undergo further peer review.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is unsuitable for publication.

The corresponding author is informed of the decision and provided with the relevant reviewer and editorial comments.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response addressing all reviewer and editorial comments.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other appropriate experts, as deemed necessary by the editorial team. Failure to adequately address substantive reviewer or editorial comments may result in a further revision request or rejection.

6. Final Decision and Publication

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations, editorial assessments, and the authors' responses.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, typesetting, and publication in accordance with JASS editorial and publication procedures.

7. Ethical Standards and Commitment

JASS is committed to the following principles throughout the peer-review process:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts and associated review materials are treated as confidential documents and must not be disclosed or used for personal or professional advantage.
  • Fairness and Impartiality: Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and research integrity, without discrimination or inappropriate influence.
  • Reviewer Integrity: Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, respectful, and timely assessments and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial, financial, personal, or other inappropriate considerations.
  • Timeliness: JASS aims to complete the peer-review process within approximately 4–6 weeks of submission, subject to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for revisions.

JASS is committed to maintaining peer-review standards consistent with the requirements and best practices of recognized scholarly indexing and abstracting services, including DOAJ, Scopus, and Web of Science, where applicable.

All authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold the principles of academic integrity, confidentiality, transparency, fairness, and responsible scholarly publishing throughout the publication process.