Peer Review Statement

Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India) uses a double-blind review process to assess the scientific quality of the submitted manuscripts.  The Editorial Board of the Journal, comprising of an Editor-in-Chief, four Editors, and each Editor is supported by a number of Associate Editors from different areas of specialisation, is responsible for the timely and quality peer-review of submitted manuscripts to maintain the quality and integrity of the Journals content.  All submissions to this journal undergo peer review by members of the journal’s editorial board, expert reviewers, and the editor-in-chief to assess the scientific quality of the submitted manuscripts. Only those manuscripts that successfully meet the journal’s quality requirements are published.

Authors should ensure that their manuscripts follow the guidelines for authors prior to submission. In case, a manuscript during initial editorial screening is found not to fulfil the aims, scope, and guidelines of the journal, it is summarily declined. After the initial editorial screening for completeness and technical suitability, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an Editor based on the content/subject matter of the submitted manuscript (Review Flow Process). The editor does an initial review to judge whether the manuscript merits peer-review. If the manuscript is found suitable for peer-review, it is assigned to one of the Associate Editors; otherwise, it is declined. Once manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor, he/she invites at least two independent peer reviewers of the concerned technical area(s). Manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific significance, scientific quality, and presentation quality through an objective assessment (Referee Evaluation Form). The reviewers provide their opinion in a defined form containing objective evaluation of different attributes, an overall assessment score, and separate comments for the authors and editors. On receiving the review reports from at least two independent peer reviewers, the Associate Editor based on his own review and expert reviewers’ comments transmit the review comments and decision to the concerned Editor. The Editor, in consultation with his editorial team, pays due consideration to the peer-reviewed reports and the opinions of the editorial team while making a decision; but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations of the reviewers. A manuscript may be either further processed without major revisions, or considered for satisfactory revision by the author(s), or declined for further consideration. The authors are normally provided with adequate technical guidance for undertaking the required revisions. If necessary, a revised manuscript may be resent for review by the reviewer(s). Subsequent revisions of the manuscript by the authors may be necessary in case all issues are not satisfactorily resolved; or, in the worst case it may not be further considered. A final decision on acceptance / non-acceptance of a manuscript is taken by the Editor-in-Chief after due consideration of review reports, recommendation of the Editor, and examination of the content of the manuscript. After technical editing, the authors are given ample opportunity to further improve the content of a manuscript before making a final decision.

Where an Editor or any Editorial Board member is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board is assigned to oversee the peer review process. Editorial decisions are made solely based on scholarly merit, and are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors (COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9). Authors may appeal against non-acceptance by sending an e-mail to the Editors-in-Chief giving a detailed justification, including point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers and editor(s). Appeals can only be submitted following a “decline” decision, and within three weeks from the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being further considered. The Editor-in-Chief or the handling Editor duly considers the technical points raised by the authors under the ambit of the reviewer reports / Editorial Board comments, and any other material deemed fit; and decides whether (a) the appeal should be considered; (b) the decision on decline should stand; or (c) another independent technical opinion of a subject-matter expert is required. The complainant, if appropriate, is informed of the decision with required explanation.