Peer Review Policy

Innovations in Agricultural and Environmental Science (IAES) upholds a rigorous Triple-blind peer review process to maintain the quality, integrity, and scholarly relevance of all published content. The peer review process is designed to ensure fairness, objectivity, and transparency while supporting the advancement of knowledge in agriculture and environmental science.

1. Review Process Overview

  • All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening to assess their suitability for the journal’s scope and adherence to submission guidelines.

  • Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least three independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

  • The review is Triple-blind, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

  • Reviewers are given 2 to 3 weeks to provide their evaluations. Extensions may be granted upon request.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate the originality, methodology, validity, and significance of the research.

  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback.

  • Suggest revisions that improve the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest and decline the review if impartiality cannot be maintained.

3. Editorial Decision Criteria

Based on reviewer comments and editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept the manuscript without revisions

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Request major revisions and resubmission

  • Reject the manuscript

Authors are informed of the decision, along with detailed reviewer comments and editorial feedback.

4. Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within the specified time (typically 2–4 weeks).

  • A point-by-point response to reviewers' comments must accompany the revised submission.

  • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers if necessary.

5. Final Decision and Publication

  • The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief after considering the recommendations of the reviewers and editorial board.

  • Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading before online publication.

6. Reviewer Selection and Confidentiality

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic qualifications, and reviewing history.

  • All manuscript content and reviewer identities are treated as confidential.

  • Reviewers are prohibited from using or disclosing manuscript information for personal or professional advantage.

7. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal, written explanation.

  • Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board or an independent advisory panel.

  • All complaints are handled according to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

8. Ethical Oversight

IAES follows the ethical standards set by the COPE, and any instances of misconduct—such as plagiarism, data falsification, or unethical research practices—are investigated thoroughly and may lead to rejection or retraction.