Peer Review Process

The International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science (IJRAFS) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process in accordance with the principles and best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to ensuring academic integrity, impartial evaluation, and the highest standards of scholarly publishing.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or assigned handling editor. This preliminary assessment determines whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
  • Meets basic quality and formatting standards
  • Demonstrates sufficient academic merit
  • Complies with ethical and submission requirements

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without external review.

Plagiarism and Ethical Screening

All submissions are subject to plagiarism detection and ethical evaluation. The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, or unethical research practices. If ethical concerns arise, the journal follows established COPE procedures to investigate and resolve the matter.

Peer Review Model

IJRAFS operates under a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate submissions based solely on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The journal maintains a selective peer-review process with an average acceptance rate of 28–32%, reflecting its commitment to publishing high-quality scholarly research and maintaining rigorous academic standards.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on criteria including originality, methodological rigor, clarity of objectives, validity of results, relevance to the field, ethical compliance, and overall contribution to agricultural and food science research. Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Editorial decisions are made based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and the journal’s established quality standards.

Revision Process

If revisions are requested, authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. In cases of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor. Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests or external pressures.

Transparency and Fairness

The journal ensures that:

  • Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit.
  • There is no discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
  • Conflicts of interest are disclosed and managed appropriately.
  • Confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals will be reviewed objectively, and additional independent evaluation may be sought where appropriate. Ethical complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.