Journal of Smart and Sustainable Farming
Peer Review Process
The peer review process is a crucial part of the publication cycle. Every manuscript submitted to the Journal of Smart and Sustainable Farming will be thoroughly reviewed by our Editorial Board Members and undergo blind reviews by two independent reviewers. Below is the editorial workflow that all submitted manuscripts follow.
Initial Evaluation
All manuscripts are handled through Ansis Publications' proprietary Manuscript Tracking System, Ansis Manager. Upon receiving a manuscript, our Editorial Office conducts a plagiarism check using iThenticate software and evaluates the manuscript to determine if it should proceed to peer review. Therefore, it is crucial for authors to ensure their manuscript is well-written and of high quality. During the initial screening, our Editorial Office primarily examines the following:
- Does the manuscript fall within the journal's scope?
- Is the manuscript of sufficient quality to merit review?
- Does the manuscript comply with the journal's Instructions for Authors?
- Has the manuscript been previously submitted or published elsewhere?
- For submissions from the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, other journal Board members and authors with conflicts of interest with them, we ensure that the paper is confidentially handled by a different member of the editorial board.
- For Special Issue submissions, if conflicts of interest exist between the Guest Editors and authors, another Editor from the Editorial Board will manage the peer review process and make the final decision on acceptance or rejection after the review.
If the manuscript fails to meet the journal's requirements, it is promptly rejected.
Peer Review
Once manuscripts pass the initial screening, they are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief then designates a Handling Editor for each manuscript. The Handling Editor forwards the manuscript to at least three reviewers for peer review. Reviewers provide their evaluation results along with a recommendation for one of the following actions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject & Resubmit
- Reject
We utilize a double-blind peer review process in which neither reviewers nor authors are aware of each other's identities. Our journals greatly value the crucial contributions of the researchers who perform these peer reviews, acknowledging that their work is vital to the journal's publication.
Final Decision
To provide a recommendation on the manuscript, the handling editor requires at least two completed reviews. Once the reviewers submit their comments, the handling editor is notified and then sends their recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief, who communicates the final decision to the author.
If the manuscript is conditionally accepted, authors must revise it according to the Editor’s suggestions and resubmit the revised version for further evaluation.
Our Editorial Workflow permits editors to reject manuscripts for several reasons, such as the subject being inappropriate, lack of quality, or incorrect results. To ensure a high-quality and unbiased peer review, we send the manuscript to a diverse group of reviewers from various regions around the world.
Complaints
If authors encounter any issues during the publication process, they can submit their complaints to help@ansispublications.com. The Editorial Office will address complaints related to the journal’s policies and procedures and may forward them to the respective journal’s Editorial Board if necessary.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests