ADDITIONAL MENU
Peer Review Process
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Process
Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab applies an independent, objective, confidential, and double-anonymous peer-review process to maintain the scientific quality and integrity of published articles.
All research articles, review articles, methodological advances, and technological advances submitted to Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab (JATL), internationally titled Humid Tropical Agroecotechnology Journal, are evaluated through editorial screening and peer review before they can be accepted for publication.
Double
Anonymous Review
≥ 2
Independent Reviewers
4 Weeks
Standard Review Period
Review Model
JATL applies a double-anonymous peer-review model. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. Authors must therefore remove names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that could reveal their identity from the manuscript file submitted for review.
Each manuscript that passes editorial screening is ordinarily evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.
Peer-Review Workflow
1
Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the manuscript's completeness, file format, author metadata, required declarations, supporting documents, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
2
Editorial Screening
An editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, scientific contribution, originality, methodological adequacy, readability, and compliance with ethical and editorial policies.
3
Similarity and Integrity Screening
The manuscript may be screened using similarity-detection software and evaluated for duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, image manipulation, fabricated data, or other potential research-integrity concerns.
4
Reviewer Selection
The editor appoints at least two independent reviewers based on subject expertise, publication or research experience, availability, impartiality, and the absence of conflicting interests.
5
Independent Peer Review
Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive comments and a recommendation. The standard period for completing a review is up to four weeks after accepting the invitation, although the editor may adjust the deadline when necessary.
6
Editorial Evaluation
The editor evaluates the reviewers' reports, the quality of their reasoning, and the manuscript as a whole. Reviewer recommendations support but do not automatically determine the editorial decision.
7
Author Revision
When revision is requested, the author must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed point-by-point response explaining how every editorial and reviewer comment has been addressed. Changes should be clearly identifiable in the revised file.
8
Re-evaluation
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the extent of the revision and the issues that remain to be resolved. More than one revision round may be required.
9
Final Decision and Production
The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the final decision. An accepted manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout, author proofreading, metadata verification, and publication.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects:
Relevance and Originality
Alignment with the journal's scope, novelty, and contribution to agroecotechnology, agronomy, soil science, or plant protection.
Scientific Quality
Sound research design, appropriate methods, reliable analysis, adequate evidence, and reproducible reporting.
Presentation
Clarity of the title, abstract, objectives, results, discussion, conclusions, tables, figures, and academic language.
References
Relevance, accuracy, adequacy, currency, and appropriate acknowledgment of previous research.
Research Ethics
Compliance with applicable ethical approval, consent, research integrity, data reporting, and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Practical and Scientific Value
Significance of the findings and their implications for science, agricultural practice, policy, or future research.
Editorial Decisions
Following evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of these decisions:
Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations
When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor evaluates the strength and relevance of each report rather than deciding by numerical majority. The editor may request clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer, ask the author for further revision, or make a decision based on the available scholarly evidence.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Accept a review assignment only when possessing appropriate expertise and sufficient time.
- Provide an objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful assessment.
- Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and unsupported allegations.
- Declare any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or intellectual conflict of interest.
- Decline the assignment when a conflict could affect, or appear to affect, impartiality.
- Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, review report, research data, and editorial correspondence.
- Not use unpublished ideas, methods, data, or findings for personal or third-party benefit.
- Not transfer the review to another person without prior permission from the editor.
- Promptly notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical research, or another serious integrity concern.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts Are Confidential Documents
Editors and reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss, copy, or use a submitted manuscript or its contents outside the editorial process. Reviewer identities and reports are protected according to the double-anonymous review model, except where disclosure is required to investigate a serious ethical or legal concern.
Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, research data, figures, review report, or any confidential editorial material to a generative artificial intelligence system or another external service where confidentiality, data retention, and reuse cannot be assured.
A reviewer wishing to use an AI-assisted tool must obtain prior permission from the editor, disclose the tool and its purpose, and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, fairness, and confidentiality of the review. An AI tool cannot replace the reviewer's expert judgment and cannot be credited as a reviewer.
Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members
A manuscript submitted by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or person affiliated with the journal is not given preferential treatment. The person concerned must not participate in reviewer selection, editorial evaluation, correspondence, or the publication decision. The manuscript will be managed by another authorized editor without a relevant conflict of interest and will undergo the same independent review process as other submissions.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation identifying a significant factual, procedural, or ethical concern. Disagreement with the reviewers' conclusions alone is not sufficient. An appeal will be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision whenever practicable.
Appeals and complaints may be sent to: jurnalagroteknologi@faperta.unmul.ac.id . Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.
Final Editorial Authority: The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor has final responsibility for deciding which manuscripts are published. A manuscript may be rejected at any stage before publication if significant concerns arise regarding its scientific quality, originality, ethics, integrity, or compliance with journal policy.
