Peer Review Process

The Journal of Sustainable Agribusiness and Innovation Systems (JOSAIS) implements a rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly work. The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process to maintain objectivity and minimize bias.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary screening by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • Alignment with the journal’s focus and scope

  • Originality and relevance to sustainable agribusiness and innovation systems

  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting standards

  • Ethical compliance, including plagiarism screening using similarity detection software

Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding acceptable thresholds or showing signs of academic misconduct are rejected without further review.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

Submissions that pass the initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise. The Handling Editor evaluates the manuscript’s methodological rigor, conceptual contribution, and academic relevance before sending it for peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant field. In cases of conflicting recommendations, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Theoretical contribution and novelty

  • Methodological soundness

  • Data validity and analytical rigor

  • Clarity of argumentation and logical coherence

  • Practical and policy implications

  • Ethical integrity and citation adequacy

Reviewers provide structured feedback and a recommendation:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

4. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision decisions must submit:

  • A revised manuscript with tracked changes

  • A detailed response letter addressing each reviewer comment

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, particularly in cases of major revision.

5. Final Decision

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ recommendations and the Handling Editor’s assessment. Editorial decisions are guided by academic merit, originality, and contribution to the field rather than perceived impact alone.

6. Ethical Standards

The journal adheres to international publication ethics guidelines consistent with COPE principles. All parties (authors, reviewers, and editors) are required to uphold standards regarding:

  • Conflict of interest disclosure

  • Data transparency and reproducibility

  • Ethical research conduct

  • Confidentiality in review

7. Transparency and Timeliness

The journal aims to complete the first review decision within 4–6 weeks of submission. Authors are informed at every stage of the review process through the online submission system.