Review Policy

Review Policy

The Journal of Agribusiness and Social Sciences (JASS) considers peer review fundamental to maintaining the quality, originality, and integrity of scholarly research. These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations of reviewers participating in the journal's double-blind peer-review process. All submitted manuscripts, including invited and commissioned contributions, are subject to appropriate peer review before publication.

1. 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 to promote fairness, impartiality, and objective assessment.

  • Reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
  • Manuscripts are evaluated objectively based on scientific and scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors or disclose their own identities during the review process.

2. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in ensuring the quality and integrity of research published in JASS. Their primary responsibilities include:

  • Assessing Scientific and Scholarly Rigor: Evaluating the research design, methodology, theoretical or conceptual framework, data analysis, interpretation of results, and validity of conclusions.
  • Evaluating Originality and Contribution: Assessing the novelty, significance, and contribution of the manuscript to agribusiness, agricultural economics, rural development, social sciences, and related interdisciplinary fields.
  • Providing Constructive Feedback: Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and providing clear, objective, evidence-based, and actionable recommendations for improvement.
  • Ensuring Citation Integrity: Identifying relevant published research that may have been overlooked and reporting suspected plagiarism, inappropriate citation practices, citation manipulation, or redundant publication.
  • Maintaining Confidentiality: Treating all manuscripts, supplementary materials, and review-related communications as strictly confidential and not using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Declaring Conflicts of Interest: Disclosing any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment and declining the assignment where impartiality may be compromised.
  • Adhering to Ethical Standards: Conducting reviews professionally, objectively, respectfully, and within the agreed timeframe, without personal criticism, discriminatory language, or inappropriate influence.

Reviewers provide recommendations to assist the editorial team; the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized editorial decision-maker.

3. Preparation and Submission of Review Comments

Reviewers should access the manuscript and any supplementary materials through the JASS online submission system and conduct their assessment based on the materials provided.

Review reports should be clear, balanced, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate the scientific accuracy, logical consistency, methodological appropriateness, and interpretation of the findings.
  • Identify methodological limitations, analytical weaknesses, theoretical or conceptual gaps, and unsupported conclusions.
  • Provide specific recommendations to improve the manuscript's quality, clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field.
  • Distinguish between essential revisions required for scientific validity and optional suggestions for improvement.
  • Provide a clear recommendation to the editorial team, supported by the reviewer's assessment.

Although language and formatting are not the primary focus of scientific peer review, reviewers may identify issues affecting the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and readability. The review should primarily address the manuscript's scientific and scholarly quality, research integrity, methodological soundness, and contribution to the relevant field.

All review comments and recommendations must be submitted through the JASS online editorial system within the agreed review period.