Peer review process
Our editorial process involves several stages to ensure the quality and originality of the articles published in out journal. First, the articles received are reviewed by our editor in chief to ensure that they meet the journal’s criteria and are original. To ensure originality, we use iThenticate antiplagiarism software.
Articles are then sent for peer review by experts in the field, who receive the manuscript without names and affiliations. Within one month, the reviewers send their verdict to the Editorial Board, which may accept the manuscripts as it is, with minor correction, with major corrections, or reject it. If the manuscript is accepted with corrections, the authors must respond to each of the comments with sound arguments.
Once the necessary corrections have been made, the article goes to the editing stage, where it is formatted according to the journal’s requirements. A galley proof is sent to the authors for review and must be returned within five working days.
Finally, once the galley has been approved, the article is accepted and the authors are notified. We hope that this process ensures the quality and originality of articles published in our popular science journal.
General peer review process:
- Preliminary review: A preliminary review of the article s carried out to determine whether it meets the journal’s requirements in term of format, style and subject matter. If the article does not meet these requirements, it will be returned to the author with comments for revision.
- Assignment of reviewers: Once the article has passed the preliminary review, it will be assigned to two reviewers who are experts in the field. Reviewers will be selected based on their expertise in the area of the article and without any conflict of interest with the author.
- Peer review: Reviewers will conduct a thorough review of the article and provide detailed comments on the content, structure, methodology and quality of the article. Reviewers will also be asked to assess originality and relevance of the article.
- Reporting to reviewers comments: After receiving the reviewer’s comments, the author will have the opportunity to respond and make changes to the article. The author should respond to each comment and explain how the concerns raised have been addressed.
- Editorial decision: After receiving the author’s comments and the reviewers’ revisions, the editor in chief will make an editorial decision to accept or reject the article. If the article is accepted, we will work with the author to make final revisions and the article sill be published in the rejected, details and constructive comments will be provided on how to improve the article for future submissions.
This peer review process ensures that the review articles published in the Journal of Agrifood Science and Biotechnology are rigorous, relevant and of high quality.
Reviewer profile and responsibilities
Reviewer profiles for the Journal of Agrifood and Biotechnology Sciences (RCAB) should be experts in the subject area of the journal, with extensive knowledge of research and scientific dissemination. They should have advanced academic degree in Agrifood and biotechnology sciences and experience in research, teaching and publication in scientific journals.
The reviewers will be responsible for:
- To evaluate the articles assigned to them in an objective, confidential and rigorous manner, and to provide detailed report that will allow the editors to make an informed decision on the publication of the article.
- Review articles within the deadlines set by the editors of any problems that may prevent the review from being completed within the set deadline.
- Identify and report to the editors any lack of originality, plagiarism or scientific misconduct in the articles.
- Provide constructive feedback to authors on how to improve the article and suggest any additional references or experiments needed to support the findings presented.
- Maintain confidentiality and do not disclose information about articles to third parties without permission from the editors.
- Actively participate in the continuous improvement of the jousnal’s peer review processby providing comments and suggestions to editors.
