Review Policy

Review Policy

The Journal of Integrated Sciences and Agriculture (JISA) considers peer review fundamental to maintaining the quality, originality, scientific rigor, 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 where applicable, are subject to appropriate peer review before publication.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

JISA 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 merit, originality, methodological rigor, significance, validity of findings, and relevance to the journal's multidisciplinary scope.
  • Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or disclose their own identities during the review process.
  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and all information obtained during the review.
  • The double-blind review process is intended to minimize potential bias and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated primarily on the quality and contribution of the research.

2. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

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

  • Assessing Scientific Rigor: Evaluating the research design, methodology, theoretical or conceptual framework, data collection and analysis, interpretation of results, and validity of conclusions, as appropriate to the discipline.
  • Evaluating Originality and Contribution: Assessing the novelty, significance, interdisciplinary relevance, and contribution of the manuscript to agricultural sciences and related scientific disciplines.
  • 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, duplicate publication, or other concerns affecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
  • Maintaining Confidentiality: Treating all manuscripts, supplementary materials, and review-related communications as strictly confidential and not using unpublished information for personal, academic, professional, or commercial 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, 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 JISA 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 soundness, and interpretation of the findings.
  • Identify methodological limitations, analytical weaknesses, unsupported conclusions, or inconsistencies in the manuscript.
  • Assess whether the research makes a meaningful and sufficiently original contribution to the relevant field.
  • Provide specific recommendations to improve the manuscript's scientific quality, clarity, coherence, and contribution.
  • Distinguish between essential revisions required for scientific validity and optional suggestions for improvement.
  • Identify relevant literature where necessary to strengthen the scientific context and scholarly contribution of the manuscript.
  • Report any suspected ethical concerns, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, or other research-integrity issues confidentially to the editor.
  • 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 clarity, coherence, and readability. The review should primarily address the manuscript's scientific quality, research integrity, methodological rigor, originality, and contribution to the field.

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