Peer Review

Peer Review Process

Purpose

This policy defines AgroBioTech’s peer review process and related roles, responsibilities, procedures and safeguards. Its purpose is to ensure rigorous, fair, timely and transparent evaluation of manuscripts submitted to AgroBioTech, to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, and to provide clear operational guidance compatible with Open Journal Systems (OJS) workflows.

Scope

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to AgroBioTech and to all individuals involved in the editorial and peer review process, including the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, section editors, editorial staff, reviewers and authors. It covers initial editorial screening, selection and appointment of reviewers, review conduct and reporting, editorial decision-making, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, appeals, quality assurance and recordkeeping.

Definitions

Manuscript: any submission made for consideration for publication in AgroBioTech (original research, reviews, short communications, technical notes, etc.).

Double-blind peer review: a review model in which reviewers do not know authors’ identities and authors do not know reviewers’ identities.

Desk rejection: rejection by the editorial office or Editor-in-Chief without external peer review.

Reviewer report: the structured evaluation and recommendation(s) provided by an invited reviewer.

COI: conflict of interest financial, personal, academic, or other interests that could bias evaluation.

Responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief (EiC): sets editorial standards and policies; makes final publication decisions; oversees appeals and ethical escalations; ensures COPE compliance.

Associate/Section Editors: manage assigned submissions; perform editorial screening; select and invite reviewers; collate reviewer reports and recommend decisions to EiC.

Managing/Editorial Staff: manage OJS workflow, perform administrative checks (format, completeness), run similarity checks, manage communications and recordkeeping.

Reviewers: provide objective, timely, confidential and constructive evaluations in accordance with

Reviewer Responsibilities

Authors: disclose relevant COIs at submission, provide required ethical approvals and data availability statements, respond to reviewer comments in a timely and transparent manner.

Double-Blind Peer Review Model

AgroBioTech uses a double-blind peer review model as the default for all original research and review manuscripts.

Authors must submit a blinded manuscript version (no names, affiliations, funder-identifying acknowledgements or metadata that reveal identity) plus a separate title page with full author details for editorial use.

Editorial offices will anonymize files that may reveal identity (file metadata, tracked changes, identifying acknowledgements) prior to sending to reviewers.

Exceptions: for certain article types (editorials, invited reviews, methodological papers where author identity is integral, or when an author requests open peer review) the journal may adopt an alternative model. Any deviation will be declared in the decision letter and on the published article where applicable.

Note on OJS configuration: recommendations for enabling double-blind review within OJS are included in the Procedure section below. The local document library consulted did not contain an OJS configuration manual; the OJS-specific guidance in this policy reflects editorial best practice rather than a source-derived OJS specification.

Editorial Screening

1. Administrative checks (managed by editorial staff upon submission)

Completeness (files, cover letter, title page, blinded manuscript, ethical statements, data availability).

Compliance with journal scope and format.

Plagiarism/similarity screening via Crossref Similarity Check or equivalent tool.

Confirmation of necessary ethical approvals and statements for studies involving humans, animals, biological agents or regulated materials (if applicable). 2. Editorial triage (Associate Editor/EiC)

Evaluate fit to scope, novelty, methodological soundness, and ethical suitability.

Possible outcomes:

Proceed to peer review.

Request technical revision prior to external review (e.g., missing approvals).

Desk rejection (with reasoned explanation). 3. Measures for suspected ethical issues at screening:

If similarity check indicates substantial overlap or plagiarism, editorial office will request clarification from the author. If unresolved, the manuscript will be rejected and COPE guidelines consulted.

Suspicions of fabricated or manipulated data or image integrity issues trigger in-depth checks (forensic image analysis, methodological verification) and may prompt immediate rejection and institutional notification in accordance with COPE Core Practices.

Reviewer Selection

Number and expertise: Aim to secure at least two independent external peer reviewers for original research; three reviewers may be used for high-impact manuscripts or where methodological complexity demands specialist assessment.

Reviewers must possess appropriate expertise (as evidenced by publications, institutional role, or explicit subject-matter experience).

Selection criteria: No recent co-authorship with the authors (within the last 3 years) and no current close collaboration or supervisory relationship.

Geographic and institutional diversity is encouraged to minimize bias.

Consider gender and career-stage balance where feasible.

Sources for reviewer identification: Editorial board members (not for manuscripts where a conflict exists), author-suggested reviewers (subject to editorial vetting), bibliographic databases, prior reviewers in OJS, and professional networks.

Reviewer invitations: Invitations will include manuscript title, abstract, expected timeline, confidentiality reminder and a request to declare conflicts of interest or inability to review.

Authors’ suggested reviewers are considered but not automatically appointed; reviewers suggested by authors who have a clear COI must be declined.

OJS compatibility note: configure OJS to record reviewer expertise keywords, previous review performance and COI declarations. (Local library did not provide an OJS configuration manual; this recommendation is an editorial best practice.)

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Accept only those assignments in which they have relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.

Declare any potential COI at invitation or immediately upon discovery.

Complete assessments objectively, constructively and with academic rigor.

Preserve confidentiality: do not share, copy or use unpublished material.

Evaluate manuscripts against the journal’s evaluation criteria (see below) and provide a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) with a detailed report supporting that recommendation.

Use the journal’s structured review form in OJS and, where applicable, provide annotated files and line-by-line responses to major points.

Meet agreed deadlines or request a brief extension in advance. If unable to complete, notify the editorial office promptly.

Disclose use of third-party tools (e.g., for statistical analysis) or AI assistance in preparing the review, in accordance with journal guidance. (AgroBioTech maintains a separate Artificial Intelligence policy; reviewers should consult that policy for permitted uses. That AI policy is independent and not reproduced here.)

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers and editors will evaluate submissions with respect to: -

Scope

and relevance to AgroBioTech’s readership.

Originality and significance of findings.

Rigor and transparency of methods and analysis.

Appropriateness of experimental design, statistical analysis and controls.

Clarity, structure and completeness of reporting (including materials, methods, code and data availability statements).

Ethical compliance (approvals, informed consent, biosafety).

Adequacy of literature contextualization and correct attribution.

Reproducibility and data accessibility: availability of datasets, code or protocols as required by the journal.

Quality and clarity of figures, tables and supplementary material.

Potential for dual-use or biosafety concerns; if present, detailed risk assessment and additional peer review may be required.

Editorial Decisions

Decision categories:

Accept as submitted (rare).

Accept after minor revision.

Revise and resubmit (major revision).

Reject and encourage resubmission after major new work (when appropriate).

Desk reject (no external review).

Decision process:

Associate/Section Editor compiles reviewer reports and recommends a decision to the EiC.

The EiC makes the final decision, considering reviewer comments, editorial policy and COPE guidance for any ethical concerns.

Conditional acceptances:

Acceptance may be conditional on completion of minor edits, provision of raw data, or satisfactory completion of specific checks (e.g., image integrity).

Post-decision checks:

Prior to publication, the editorial office performs final checks: author proofs, metadata, data/code availability compliance, conflict of interest statements and any outstanding ethical requirements.

Confidentiality

All editorial communications, reviewer reports and unpublished manuscript content are confidential.

Editorial staff and editors must not disclose manuscript content or reviewer identities except as necessary for the review process, legal obligations, or as part of an ethical investigation.

Reviewers must not use knowledge gained through peer review for personal advantage or to compete with authors.

Where the journal publishes peer review reports or peer reviewer identities (only by explicit agreement), disclosure will be made with the reviewers’ prior informed consent.

Conflicts of Interest

All participants must disclose relevant conflicts:

Editors disclose conflicts and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists.

Reviewers must decline or recuse if they have a COI (recent collaboration, shared funding, institutional ties, personal relationships, commercial interests).

Authors must disclose funding sources, affiliations, and potential competing interests at submission.

Management of undisclosed COIs:

If an undisclosed COI is discovered post-review, the editorial office will evaluate its impact on the review and decision. Remedies include re-review, reassignment to different editors/reviewers, correction of the record or rejection, following COPE advice where relevant.

Ethical Responsibilities

(investigations and safeguards)

Integrity checks:

Editorial office runs similarity checks on all submissions.

Image and data integrity checks are performed when concerns arise.

Suspected misconduct:

If misconduct is suspected (plagiarism, data fabrication, peer review manipulation), the journal follows COPE Core Practices: gather evidence, contact authors for explanation, and if necessary contact institutions and funders. The journal retains the right to reject or retract manuscripts as warranted.

Proportional measures:

Minor issues: request clarification or corrections from authors.

Moderate issues: require additional review (statistical, methodological or image forensics) or invite an independent expert reviewer.

Serious or systematic concerns: suspend review, request institutional investigation, issue expressions of concern or retract as per COPE guidance.

Record of investigations and final actions will be retained and summarized in editorial records.

Review Timelines

Target timelines (journal performance goals):

Initial administrative checks: within 5 business days of submission.

Editorial screening decision (proceed/desk reject): within 10 business days of submission.

Reviewer invitation response window: 7 calendar days.

Reviewer completion target: 21 calendar days from acceptance of invitation (extensions may be granted).

First editorial decision after review: within 4–6 weeks from submission in routine cases.

Flexibility:

Timelines are targets; complex or multidisciplinary manuscripts may require longer. Authors and reviewers will be informed promptly of expected delays.

Note: the local document library reviewed (see Sources Consulted) provided general peer review practice guidance but did not prescribe exact numerical timelines for AgroBioTech; the journal’s targets above are editorially determined.

Appeals

Grounds for appeal: - Appeals are limited to substantive procedural errors, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or demonstrable factual errors that materially affected the decision.

Appeal procedure: Authors must submit a written appeal within 30 calendar days of the decision, stating grounds and providing supporting evidence.

Appeals are initially reviewed by the EiC (or a designated independent editor if the EiC handled the original decision).

Possible outcomes: uphold original decision, order additional review(s) by new reviewers, overturn decision, or offer other remedial measures.

Final appeals after internal review may be escalated to the journal’s publisher or an independent ombudsperson where available.

Appeals do not guarantee reconsideration; they will be handled according to principles of fairness and proportionality.

Quality Assurance

Training and guidance:

AgroBioTech provides reviewer guidance and structured review forms to promote consistency.

Editors receive regular training in editorial ethics, COI management and detecting manipulation.

Monitoring and metrics:

The editorial office monitors reviewer performance (timeliness, quality), decision times, and rates of appeals and corrections.

Audit and remediation:

Periodic audits of peer review outcomes and editorial decisions will be conducted to identify bias or systemic issues.

Corrective actions include reviewer or editor re-training, changes in reviewer selection protocols, and updates to guidance materials.

Recognition:

AgroBioTech may offer formal recognition for high-quality reviewing (certificates, Publons/integration where permitted, editorial board invitations) while preserving confidentiality.

COPE Compliance

AgroBioTech aligns its peer review and ethical handling of manuscripts with COPE Core Practices and relevant COPE guidance documents (including Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE flowcharts for misconduct cases).

In suspected misconduct, the journal follows COPE-recommended steps: gather information, seek explanation from authors, consult institutions when necessary, and apply proportionate remedies (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions).

The journal will cooperate with COPE investigations and follow COPE flowcharts to ensure transparent, consistent and ethical outcomes.

Records and Retention

Editorial records and peer review histories (manuscript files, reviewer reports, decision letters, COI declarations, and investigation documentation) are retained securely in the journal’s editorial management system in accordance with data protection laws.

Retention period: editorial records will be retained for a minimum of 7 years after the final decision; longer retention may occur for cases involving investigations or legal matters. (This retention period is the journal’s operational standard; local sources did not mandate a specific retention timeframe.)

Access to records is restricted to editorial staff, the EiC and authorized parties (publisher, institutions, COPE) as required.

Policy Review and Amendments

This policy will be reviewed at least annually by the Editor-in-Chief and the journal’s editorial governance committee to ensure alignment with best practices, evolving standards (including COPE recommendations) and OJS capabilities.

Significant amendments will be published on the AgroBioTech website and communicated to the editorial board, reviewers and authors.

Contact and Further Information

Queries about the peer review process, appeals, or potential ethical concerns should be directed to the editorial office at editorial.office@agrobio.tech (or the contact provided on the journal website).