Peer Review Process
The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the journal via the online submission system and the journal accepts submissions by email. Editor in chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting recording to aim and scope of Agrinula : Journal of Agrotechnology and Plantations. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further. Editor in chief coordinate with the editors to send invitations to two individuals appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued. Potential reviewers consider the invitation, then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, the editor might also suggest alternative reviewers. The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered. The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
The final stages, If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the editorial office.
Peer Review Roadmap