Peer Review Process

Agritrop: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (Journal of Agricultural Science) implements a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure that all published manuscripts meet high standards of scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, and relevance to agricultural sciences.

The journal follows publication ethics principles developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), emphasizing transparency, integrity, accountability, and fairness throughout the scholarly publishing process.

Reference: COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Peer Review System

All manuscripts submitted to Agritrop undergo editorial assessment and external peer review to determine their suitability for publication. The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review system, where authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

This approach minimizes potential bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated objectively based on scientific contribution, methodological rigor, originality, and academic quality.

Reviewer confidentiality and manuscript integrity follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Confidentiality and Ethical Review

  • Reviewer and author identities remain confidential during the review process.
  • Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not disclose manuscript information or use unpublished data for personal benefit.
  • Disclosure of reviewer identity is only permitted under exceptional ethical circumstances.

Reviewer Selection

Authors may suggest two to four potential reviewers with relevant expertise. However, the final decision regarding reviewer appointment remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board.

Potential reviewers should demonstrate academic competence through:

  • Having a Google Scholar profile or equivalent academic profile;
  • Having a SINTA ID or recognized researcher identifier;
  • Having published scientific articles in relevant fields;
  • Having demonstrated expertise through previous research and publications.

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide objective scientific assessments. Reviewers must not have conflicts of interest or institutional relationships with submitting authors.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor to assess compliance with journal scope, submission requirements, ethical standards, and minimum scientific quality.

Manuscripts outside the scope of Agritrop or those failing to meet basic academic and ethical requirements may be rejected without further peer review.

External Peer Review Process

Manuscripts passing the initial screening stage are assigned to a handling editor who selects at least two independent experts in the relevant research field.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

No. Evaluation Criteria
1 Originality and novelty of research
2 Scientific contribution
3 Research methodology
4 Accuracy and reliability of data analysis
5 Interpretation and discussion of findings
6 Relevance to agricultural science
7 Compliance with research ethics

 

Editorial Decision

A final decision is made after receiving at least two independent reviewer reports.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

If reviewer recommendations differ significantly, additional reviewers may be invited before a final decision is made.

Revision Process

Manuscripts requiring revision will be returned to authors together with reviewer comments and editorial recommendations.

Authors are provided a maximum period of three weeks to submit:

  1. Revised manuscript;
  2. Response letter explaining how reviewer comments have been addressed.

The handling editor evaluates whether revisions adequately address reviewer concerns and meet Agritrop publication standards.

Final Acceptance

A manuscript will be accepted when:

  • Reviewer concerns have been appropriately addressed;
  • The manuscript satisfies scientific and ethical standards;
  • The research provides meaningful contributions to agricultural sciences.

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority regarding acceptance or rejection decisions while maintaining editorial independence and transparent decision-making procedures.

Reviewer Ethical Responsibilities

All Agritrop reviewers are required to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscript information;
  • Provide objective and unbiased evaluations;
  • Declare potential conflicts of interest;
  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit;
  • Provide constructive recommendations to improve manuscript quality.

These responsibilities follow COPE ethical standards, which define confidentiality, integrity, and fairness as essential principles of responsible peer review.