Submitted papers will go through a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that articles published have 'Good Science' content. Before entering the peer review process, the manuscript will be filtered first by the editor. At this stage, the manuscript can be rejected directly by the editor if it is deemed outside the scope of the journal, or scientifically or under standard writing.

Manuscripts that have successfully passed the screening stage are then sent for electronic review, and all correspondence is done electronically through the system or via email. Although the peer-review process is accelerated by using electronic communication, high-quality peer-reviewed standards are applied to all texts submitted to the journal.

Each script will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Agrisa Journal uses a 'double-blind' review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and peer reviewers were not told who wrote the paper. The editorial team members also cannot be peer reviewers.

The reviewer was asked to give their opinions on a number of issues relating to the scientific and formal aspects of the paper, and to evaluate the papers for reasons of originality, quality of work and empirical arguments, quality of research methodology or/and argumentation and quality of written language. In addition, the language must be non-discriminatory; sexist or racist terms may not be used, and if found can lead to direct rejection by the editor. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author.

REVIEWER RECOMMENDATIONS:

• Peer reviewers will have the following enabling options for each article:
• Accept the manuscript: Manuscript can be published without further revision.
• Accept after revision: acceptance depends on minor revisions.
• Revise and resubmit: this manuscript requires substantial revisions and other rounds of reviews.
• Reject the manuscript: the manuscript is below standard.

The final decision to accept or reject the paper and recommendations to the author is in the individual editor who is responsible for evaluating the paper.

When asking for revisions, peer reviewers have two possible objectives: asking authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data is needed. Even formal revisions may be needed if the language or style is subpar. To facilitate rapid publication, the author is given a maximum of 1 month for revision. After 1 month, the revised text will be considered as a new shipment.

Please note that all peer-reviewed reports and related correspondence will be archived by the publisher, through the publishing platform. This documentation can be provided to third parties in terms of audit requirements.