Peer Review

Process and standards

1. Desk screening submissions are checked for scope alignment template use ethics statements language clarity and similarity levels before external review
2. Anonymization manuscripts are prepared for double blind conditions and identifying details are removed to the extent possible
3. Reviewer selection at least two independent experts are invited based on subject expertise methodological competence and absence of conflicts
4. Evaluation criteria novelty scientific rigor reproducibility validity of results clarity organization quality of references and relevance to the agro environmental domain
5. Statistical and methodological checks additional consultation may be requested for specialized analyses or experimental design
6. Recommendations decision options are accept minor revision major revision with re review or reject and editors ensure consistency with reviewer advice and conference standards
7. Revisions authors submit a point by point response and revised files and substantial changes may undergo a second review round
8. Timelines desk screening targets seven to ten days external review targets two to four weeks and individual revision rounds target one to three weeks
9. Confidentiality reviewers treat manuscripts as confidential and do not use unpublished material for personal advantage and files are deleted after the process
10. Conflicts of interest reviewers declare any conflict and decline when necessary and editors reassign to maintain impartiality
11. Ethics escalation suspected duplication plagiarism image manipulation or undisclosed conflicts are escalated to the ethics and integrity lead following COPE guidance
12. Presentation requirement only presented and camera ready verified papers proceed to the publisher for production

The publisher may perform additional similarity screening and reserves the right to decline material that does not comply with publishing standards.