Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, research integrity, transparency, and fairness through a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an independent evaluation by qualified experts to ensure that only original, scientifically sound, ethically conducted, and high-quality research is published.

As an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by Novadex Publications, JATAFS follows internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

The peer review process is designed to:

  • Ensure scientific accuracy and methodological rigor.

  • Improve the quality and clarity of manuscripts.

  • Maintain fairness and confidentiality.

  • Support ethical research and responsible publication.

  • Assist editors in making informed editorial decisions.

2. Type of Peer Review

JATAFS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

Under this model:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.

  • The identities of reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to authors.

  • Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

The double-blind review process minimizes potential bias related to nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, seniority, reputation, or previous publications.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Following manuscript submission through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The Editorial Office evaluates whether the submission:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of JATAFS.

  • Complies with the Author Guidelines.

  • Includes all required files and declarations.

  • Meets formatting requirements.

  • Demonstrates acceptable English language quality.

  • Includes appropriate ethical approvals where applicable.

  • Contains complete conflict of interest and funding disclosures.

  • Meets the journal's originality requirements.

  • Successfully passes plagiarism screening.

Manuscripts that fail to satisfy these requirements may be returned to the authors for revision prior to peer review or may be rejected without external review.

4. Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JATAFS undergo plagiarism screening before entering peer review.

The Editorial Office uses recognized plagiarism-detection software to identify:

  • Plagiarism

  • Self-plagiarism

  • Duplicate publication

  • Text recycling

  • Copyright infringement

  • Inappropriate reuse of previously published material

Editors evaluate not only the overall similarity percentage but also the nature, source, context, and significance of overlapping text.

A high similarity score does not automatically indicate misconduct, and a low similarity score does not necessarily confirm originality. Editorial assessment remains the determining factor.

Manuscripts containing substantial plagiarism or other forms of publication misconduct may be rejected immediately in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

5. Reviewer Selection

Each eligible manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers possessing recognized expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Subject expertise

  • Academic qualifications

  • Research experience

  • Publication record

  • Previous peer-review performance

  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Editors strive to appoint reviewers from different institutions and, whenever possible, different countries to ensure an impartial and balanced evaluation.

The journal maintains reviewer confidentiality throughout the review process.

6. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to internationally accepted scientific standards, including:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Scientific significance

  • Clinical or practical relevance

  • Methodological rigor

  • Statistical validity

  • Quality of data analysis

  • Interpretation of results

  • Validity of conclusions

  • Organization and clarity

  • Quality and relevance of references

  • Compliance with ethical standards

  • Overall contribution to the field of Artificial Intelligence and Integrative Medicine

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.

7. Editorial Decision

After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor evaluates the recommendations and reaches an editorial decision.

Possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept without revision

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Editors may seek additional independent reviews whenever reviewer opinions substantially differ or where specialized expertise is required.

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

8. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision should:

  • Respond to every reviewer comment individually.

  • Submit a detailed point-by-point response letter.

  • Clearly identify all revisions made within the manuscript.

  • Explain any recommendations that were not incorporated.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when appropriate.

Failure to submit revisions within the requested timeframe without prior communication may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration.

9. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and peer-review reports are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

  • Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

  • Discuss manuscript contents outside the editorial process.

  • Retain copies of manuscripts after completion of the review process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review.

10. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Conflicts may include:

  • Financial interests

  • Institutional affiliations

  • Personal relationships

  • Collaborative relationships

  • Academic competition

  • Intellectual conflicts

Individuals with significant conflicts will not participate in the peer-review process for the affected manuscript.

11. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to perform evaluations professionally, objectively, and confidentially.

Reviewers should:

  • Accept review invitations only when they possess appropriate subject expertise.

  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe or promptly decline invitations if unable to do so.

  • Provide fair, objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

  • Identify important published work that has not been cited appropriately.

  • Notify the editors of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or other ethical concerns.

  • Refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.

  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewers should focus their assessment on the scientific quality of the manuscript and avoid personal criticism of the authors.

12. Author Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors are expected to cooperate fully throughout the peer review process.

Authors should:

  • Submit original and ethically conducted research.

  • Respond respectfully and comprehensively to reviewer comments.

  • Submit revised manuscripts within the requested deadline.

  • Clearly explain all revisions made.

  • Notify the Editorial Office of any significant errors discovered after submission.

  • Avoid contacting reviewers directly or attempting to influence the peer review process.

Failure to respond adequately to reviewer comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.

13. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for ensuring that every manuscript receives an impartial, timely, and scientifically rigorous evaluation.

Editors shall:

  • Maintain editorial independence.

  • Protect the confidentiality of authors and reviewers.

  • Select reviewers based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.

  • Ensure timely handling of manuscripts.

  • Make publication decisions based solely on scientific merit and reviewer recommendations.

  • Address ethical concerns in accordance with COPE guidance.

  • Avoid discrimination based on nationality, gender, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, religion, or political beliefs.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

14. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Peer Review

To preserve confidentiality and research integrity, reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or unpublished research data into publicly accessible generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems or other third-party platforms without explicit authorization from the journal.

AI-assisted tools may be used only for limited language editing or administrative support where confidentiality is fully protected.

Editors and reviewers remain fully responsible for all editorial judgments and review recommendations.

AI systems cannot replace independent scientific peer review.

15. Statistical Review

Where appropriate, manuscripts involving complex statistical analyses, clinical trials, epidemiological studies, machine learning, or artificial intelligence methodologies may undergo an additional statistical or methodological review.

Statistical reviewers evaluate:

  • Study design

  • Statistical methodology

  • Data analysis

  • Model validation

  • Reproducibility

  • Interpretation of results

Recommendations from statistical reviewers contribute to the editorial decision-making process.

16. Clinical Trial and Reporting Guideline Compliance

Authors should prepare manuscripts in accordance with internationally recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to their study design.

Examples include:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials

  • PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

  • STROBE for observational studies

  • CARE for case reports

  • ARRIVE for animal research

  • TRIPOD for prediction model studies

  • SPIRIT for clinical trial protocols

  • CHEERS for health economic evaluations

Clinical trials should be registered in a publicly accessible clinical trial registry before participant enrollment whenever required by international standards.

Editors may request reporting guideline checklists during editorial assessment.

17. Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision.

Appeals should include:

  • A detailed explanation of the grounds for appeal.

  • A point-by-point response to reviewer comments, where applicable.

  • Supporting evidence relevant to the appeal.

Appeals are reviewed independently by the editorial team. The final decision of the Editor-in-Chief following the appeal process shall be considered final.

18. Reviewer Recognition

JATAFS greatly values the contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining scientific quality.

To recognize reviewer service, the journal may:

  • Issue certificates of peer review.

  • Acknowledge reviewer contributions annually.

  • Record completed reviews through recognized reviewer recognition services where applicable and with reviewer consent.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is mutually agreed upon and consistent with journal policy.

19. Peer Review Timeline

JATAFS strives to provide an efficient and transparent editorial process. Typical processing times are as follows:

Stage Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening 3–5 days
Reviewer Assignment 3–7 days
External Peer Review 2–4 weeks
Author Revision 1–3 weeks
Final Editorial Decision 3–7 days
Online Publication (after acceptance) Within 7 days

These timelines are approximate and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

20. Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted according to internationally recognized principles of:

  • Fairness

  • Confidentiality

  • Transparency

  • Objectivity

  • Research integrity

  • Editorial independence

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement throughout the submission, review, and publication process.

The journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

21. Contact

For questions regarding the peer review process, manuscript evaluation, or editorial policies, please contact:

Editorial Office
Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS)
Novadex Publications
Email: editor@novadexpub.com

22. Commitment to High-Quality Peer Review

The Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, and efficient peer review process that supports scientific excellence and research integrity.

By combining independent expert evaluation with ethical editorial practices, JATAFS aims to publish reliable, innovative, and impactful research that advances artificial intelligence, integrative medicine, biomedical sciences, and healthcare worldwide.

The journal continuously reviews and improves its peer review procedures to align with evolving international publishing standards and welcomes constructive feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and the wider research community.