Peer Review Process

Managing Agricultural Practices and Community Engagement applies a double blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process to ensure objectivity, fairness, and academic integrity.

1. Initial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor to ensure:

Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope

Compliance with author guidelines and manuscript template

Academic and methodological soundness

Acceptable similarity index based on plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected or returned to authors for preliminary revision before entering the review stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Under the double blind review system:

Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors

Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence and must have no conflict of interest with the authors.

3. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and scientific contribution

Clarity of research objectives and problem formulation

Appropriateness of research methodology

Quality of data analysis and discussion

Relevance to agricultural practices and community engagement

Quality of references and overall manuscript organization

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept

Minor Revision

Major Revision

Reject

4. Revision Stage

If revisions are required, authors are requested to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and submit a detailed response to reviewers.

For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

5. Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revised manuscript.

The final decision may be:

Accepted

Accepted with Minor Revision

Rejected

6. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and must disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

The average review process takes approximately 8–12 weeks, depending on the responsiveness of reviewers and authors.