Buletin Ilmiah IMPAS applies a rigorous and objective peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of all manuscripts published in the journal. Every manuscript is evaluated through editorial screening and independent peer review before a final publication decision is made.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are initially screened by the Editorial Team to determine their suitability for Buletin Ilmiah IMPAS. The initial screening considers the manuscript's conformity with the journal's aims and scope, manuscript type, author guidelines, academic quality, completeness, originality, research and publication ethics, and general readiness for peer review.

The manuscript is also subject to a similarity check as part of the editorial screening process. Similarity reports are evaluated contextually by the Editorial Team and are not used solely on the basis of a numerical similarity score.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, do not meet minimum scholarly or editorial requirements, or present serious ethical or originality concerns may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are evaluated using a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Each manuscript is independently reviewed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, relevance to the subject of the manuscript, and ability to provide an independent and objective scholarly assessment. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest and should decline the review when their independence or impartiality may be compromised.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript based on its scholarly merit and relevance. The assessment includes, where applicable, the following aspects:

• relevance of the manuscript to the aims and scope of the journal;
• originality and contribution of the study;
• clarity and significance of the research problem and objectives;
• adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual foundation;
• appropriateness and clarity of the research methodology;
• quality and adequacy of the data and analysis;
• consistency between the results, discussion, and conclusions;
• engagement with relevant and appropriate scholarly literature;
• clarity, coherence, and organization of the manuscript;
• ethical considerations and research integrity; and
• overall contribution to the field of agricultural socio-economics and related areas.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments that assist the authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.

Review Period

Reviewers are normally expected to complete their review within two to four weeks after accepting the review invitation. The actual review period may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, and the need for additional evaluation.

When revisions are required, authors will be given an appropriate period to respond to reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further assessment is considered necessary.

Reviewer Recommendations

Following their assessment, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept Submission, when the manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantial changes;

Revisions Required, when the manuscript requires revisions but the necessary changes can be evaluated by the editor;

Resubmit for Review, when substantial revisions are required and the revised manuscript should undergo another round of peer review; or

Decline Submission, when the manuscript has significant weaknesses or does not meet the journal's scholarly and publication standards.

Reviewer recommendations serve as an important basis for editorial consideration but do not constitute the final publication decision.

Third Reviewer

When the recommendations of the two reviewers differ substantially or when the Editor considers that additional expert assessment is necessary, the manuscript may be submitted to a third independent reviewer.

The third review is intended to provide additional scholarly consideration before the Editor reaches a final decision.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and systematically. Authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a scholarly justification when a suggested change has not been adopted.

The Editorial Team will evaluate the revision and may return the manuscript to the reviewers for further assessment where necessary. A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision before a final decision is reached.

Editorial Decision

The final decision on publication rests with the Editor and is made after considering the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses and revisions, the manuscript's academic quality, compliance with journal policies, and relevant ethical considerations.

The possible final editorial decisions include acceptance, revision, resubmission for further review, or rejection.

The Editor is not required to follow a reviewer's recommendation when there are reasonable academic, ethical, or editorial grounds for a different decision. Any such decision should be based on the scholarly merit and integrity of the manuscript.

Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

All manuscripts undergoing peer review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers and editors must conduct the evaluation objectively and fairly and must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Buletin Ilmiah IMPAS is committed to conducting peer review in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics and to maintaining the independence, confidentiality, fairness, and integrity of its editorial decision-making process.