Peer Review Process

Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making Policy

1. General Principles

The Andalasian International Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences (AIJANS) is committed to a rigorous, independent, fair, transparent, and ethical editorial and peer-review process. The journal applies a double-anonymized peer-review system to evaluate scholarly manuscripts selected for external review.

Editorial assessment and peer review are designed to ensure that published articles demonstrate scholarly originality, methodological rigor, reliable findings, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope.

All editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit. The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication of submitted manuscripts.

This policy is informed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, Version 5.0 (2026), developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.

2. Editorial Authority and Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for the scholarly quality, editorial integrity, and independence of AIJANS.

The Editor-in-Chief oversees manuscript assessment, peer-review procedures, editorial decisions, and the handling of significant ethical concerns.

Handling editors may be assigned responsibility for initial manuscript assessment, reviewer selection, review management, and evaluation of revisions.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally authorized to exercise that responsibility.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not replace independent editorial judgment.

3. Double-Anonymized Peer Review

AIJANS applies a double-anonymized peer-review process to scholarly manuscripts that proceed to external review.

Under this model:

Reviewers do not receive the authors' identities as part of the anonymized review manuscript.
Authors are not informed of the identities of their reviewers.
Editors responsible for manuscript administration and evaluation have access to author identities when necessary.

Authors must prepare an anonymized manuscript that removes identifying information from the review version of the submission.

Identifying information should be supplied separately where required by the submission system.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed when identities can be inferred from preprints, citations, research topics, or publicly available information.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening before external peer review.

This screening assesses:

Relevance to the journal's aims and scope.
Originality and scholarly contribution.
Basic methodological adequacy.
Compliance with submission requirements.
Research and publication ethics.
Required author declarations.
Potential plagiarism or redundant publication.
Suitability for independent scholarly evaluation.

Manuscripts that satisfy the initial requirements may proceed to external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet essential editorial requirements may be returned for clarification or rejected without external peer review.

5. Desk Rejection

AIJANS may reject a manuscript without external peer review when the initial editorial assessment identifies substantial deficiencies.

Grounds for desk rejection may include:

Clear incompatibility with the journal's scope.
Insufficient originality or scholarly contribution.
Fundamental methodological weaknesses.
Major problems affecting the reliability of the work.
Serious research or publication ethics concerns.
Failure to satisfy essential submission requirements.

Desk rejection decisions must be based on scholarly and editorial considerations.

The corresponding author will be informed of the decision and its principal grounds.

6. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts selected for external review are evaluated by independent scholars with relevant subject-area or methodological expertise.

AIJANS normally seeks assessments from at least two independent reviewers for research articles.

Reviewers must not be part of the journal's editorial office responsible for processing and deciding the manuscript.

Reviewer selection considers:

Relevant academic and methodological expertise.
Independence from the authors and research.
Potential conflicts of interest.
Availability and ability to provide a timely review.
Previous review quality and professional conduct.

Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized expertise is required, reviews conflict substantially, or further independent assessment is necessary.

The handling editor is responsible for selecting and inviting reviewers. Automated suggestions may assist in identifying candidates, but reviewer suitability and independence must be verified by an editor.

7. Author-Suggested Reviewers

Authors may suggest potential reviewers when requested or permitted by the journal.

Suggestions are used only to assist the identification of qualified candidates.

Editors are not obliged to invite author-suggested reviewers.

Authors must disclose any relevant relationship with suggested reviewers and must not provide fabricated identities, misleading contact information, or reviewer suggestions intended to manipulate peer review.

The selection and appointment of reviewers remain the responsibility of the journal.

8. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.

Conflicts may arise from:

Recent or ongoing research collaboration.
Close personal or professional relationships.
Financial or commercial interests.
Supervisory or employment relationships.
Direct academic competition.
Other circumstances affecting impartiality.

Reviewers with significant conflicts must decline the invitation or consult the handling editor before proceeding.

Editors may withdraw or disregard a review when a material conflict is identified.

9. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively using the following criteria:

Originality: Novelty and significance of the contribution.
Relevance: Alignment with the journal's aims and scope.
Research Design: Appropriateness and rigor of the study design.
Methodology: Validity and transparency of research methods.
Data and Analysis: Reliability and appropriateness of the evidence.
Results: Clarity, accuracy, and significance of the findings.
Discussion: Appropriate interpretation of the results.
Conclusions: Consistency with the evidence presented.
Research Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
References: Accuracy, relevance, and appropriate attribution.

Reviewers should distinguish between essential scientific concerns and optional recommendations.

Reviews must not contain discriminatory, abusive, coercive, or unprofessional comments.

10. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers are responsible for providing independent, evidence-based, and constructive evaluations of assigned manuscripts.

Manuscripts under review are confidential scholarly materials.

Reviewers must not:

Disclose manuscript content to unauthorized parties.
Use unpublished findings for personal or professional advantage.
Contact authors directly about the manuscript without editorial authorization.
Delegate review responsibilities without prior approval from the handling editor.
Request irrelevant citations to increase citation counts.
Misrepresent their expertise or independence.

Reviewers who require assistance from colleagues or other researchers must obtain prior editorial approval.

Any approved contributor must comply with the journal's confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

AIJANS recognizes that artificial intelligence may assist certain scholarly and editorial activities. However, peer review must remain an independent human scholarly assessment.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, figures, supplementary files, or editorial correspondence to external generative AI systems without explicit journal authorization and appropriate safeguards.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent analysis, professional judgment, or responsibility for the review.

If generative AI is used to produce substantive review content, reviewers must disclose:

The name of the AI tool.
The purpose of its use.
The extent of AI assistance.
Relevant verification performed by the reviewer.

Routine spelling or grammar assistance that does not involve disclosure of confidential manuscript material or generation of substantive scientific assessment does not ordinarily require separate disclosure.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their reviews.

12. Peer Review Timeline

AIJANS aims to conduct peer review within a reasonable timeframe while maintaining scholarly rigor.

The journal's target timeframe for completing an initial external review is approximately four weeks after the reviewer accepts the invitation.

Actual review times may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the need for additional expertise.

Authors will be informed of significant delays where practicable.

If an unusually prolonged delay occurs, authors may request an update or seek manuscript withdrawal through the official editorial channel.

AIJANS does not guarantee a fixed acceptance or publication timeframe.

13. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept: Suitable for publication.
Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required.
Reject: Not suitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor evaluates the substance of the reviews, the manuscript, and the authors' responses.

The final editorial decision may differ from individual reviewer recommendations when justified by scholarly evidence.

14. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise a manuscript must address substantive reviewer and editorial comments.

A revised submission should include:

The revised manuscript.
A point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
A description of substantive changes.
Reasoned explanations for suggestions not adopted.

The handling editor determines whether the revised manuscript requires additional external review.

A revision request does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

15. Editorial Decision-Making

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merits of the manuscript, the evidence presented, and applicable ethical requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized editor makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

The decision may consider:

The manuscript's originality and contribution.
Methodological validity and research reliability.
The substance of reviewer assessments.
The adequacy of author revisions.
Research and publication ethics.
The manuscript's suitability for AIJANS.

Editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations mechanically.

When reviewer assessments are substantially inconsistent, the editor may seek additional independent advice.

16. Editorial Independence

AIJANS is published by the Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM), Universitas Andalas, Indonesia.

The publisher provides institutional and operational support. Academic decisions concerning submitted manuscripts remain the responsibility of the journal's authorized editors.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

Nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion.
Gender or political beliefs.
Institutional prestige or professional reputation.
Personal or institutional pressure.
Commercial or financial interests.
The author's ability to pay publication charges.

AIJANS does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication.

17. Separation of Editorial and Financial Decisions

AIJANS maintains a separation between scholarly evaluation and the administration of Article Processing Charges (APCs).

APC payment is required only after formal acceptance, in accordance with the journal's published fee policy.

Editors responsible for article-level acceptance or rejection decisions must not collect publication payments or decide APC waivers.

Payment status and waiver eligibility must not influence editorial assessment, reviewer selection, revision decisions, or manuscript acceptance.

Editors and editorial staff must not receive compensation based on the number of accepted manuscripts.

Additional information is provided in the Author Fees and Business Model Policy.

18. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest relevant to manuscripts under their responsibility.

An editor with a significant conflict must withdraw from the affected editorial decision.

The manuscript should be reassigned to an appropriately qualified and independent editor.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal must undergo independent editorial assessment and the applicable peer-review process.

Editors must not manage or decide their own submissions.

19. Use of AI in Editorial Assessment

AIJANS may use appropriate automated tools to support administrative and technical editorial activities, including text-similarity screening, metadata checking, and manuscript formatting assessment.

Generative AI must not independently make acceptance or rejection decisions.

Editors remain responsible for verifying automated outputs and exercising independent scholarly judgment.

Confidential manuscripts, review reports, and unpublished data must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems without appropriate authorization and confidentiality safeguards.

Where generative AI is used to produce substantive editorial comments or revision recommendations, such use must be disclosed and the output reviewed by a responsible human editor.

20. Exceptions and Publication Types

Original research articles, review articles, and short communications are subject to the applicable external peer-review procedures.

Editorial statements, announcements, correction notices, retraction notices, and expressions of concern may undergo editorial assessment appropriate to their purpose.

If an article belonging to a category normally subject to peer review is published without the standard review procedure, the exception and the assessment undertaken must be disclosed in the article's publication record.

21. Publication of Review Information

AIJANS normally maintains the confidentiality of individual reviewer reports, reviewer identities, editorial correspondence, and author responses.

Individual reviewer reports are not routinely published with accepted articles.

Supplementary materials necessary to assess the validity or reproducibility of research may be included in peer review.

The handling editor determines whether specialized review of supplementary materials is required.

Published research articles must display their publication date. AIJANS also supports the display of submission, revision, and acceptance dates to improve editorial transparency.

22. Peer Review Integrity

AIJANS does not tolerate manipulation of its editorial or peer-review process.

Prohibited practices include:

Fabricated reviewer identities.
Reviewer impersonation.
Fraudulent review arrangements.
Undisclosed significant conflicts of interest.
Coercive or irrelevant citation requests.
Unauthorized disclosure of manuscripts.
Misrepresentation of reviewer recommendations.

Credible allegations will be assessed under the journal's publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

23. Complaints and Editorial Appeals

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe a material factual or procedural error occurred.

An appeal should identify the manuscript and provide:

The editorial decision being challenged.
The specific grounds for appeal.
Relevant supporting evidence.
Any material procedural concerns.

Appeals should be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

Where practicable, an editor who was not responsible for the original decision should assess the appeal.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, reviewer behavior, or procedural fairness will be assessed impartially and documented appropriately.

24. Reviewer Guidance and Editorial Training

AIJANS will communicate its review expectations to invited reviewers, including confidentiality, conflict-of-interest requirements, evaluation criteria, and expected turnaround times.

Editors responsible for peer review should receive appropriate guidance on reviewer selection, editorial communication, ethical concerns, and the handling of unacceptable reviewer comments.

The journal will periodically review its editorial procedures to maintain consistency with international standards of scholarly publishing.