Peer Review Process
Peer Review Processes
Lalibela Journal of Agriculture and Applied Sciences (LJAAS)
LJAAS strives to provide researchers or contributors with a rigorous, constructive, positive, and timely peer review for their manuscript(s). The peer-review process is blind for all submitted manuscripts. All manuscripts submitted to LJAAS that are selected for the peer review process are supposed to be sent to two or more independent reviewers, selected by the editorial office. When an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for handling the peer review process.
Preliminary Review
All submissions to LJAAS are subjected to a preliminary review process by relevant technical editorial board members and the editors (Editor-in-Chief). The submitted manuscripts will be checked for their suitability with the scope of the journal and adherence to the journal guidelines. Unsuitable manuscripts will be rejected right away by the Editor-in-Chief while those having problems concerning guidelines will be sent back to authors for revision.
Blind Assignment
Suitable and sound manuscripts will be then assigned to the subject-specific editors to go through the review processes. Two active researchers or experts on the subject of the manuscript will be appointed anonymously for the review of each manuscript (Double-blind). The reviewers read the manuscripts and may recommend that the manuscripts be accepted with no change, rejected, or revised (usually providing detailed lists of recommended changes). Whenever contrasts of opinion arise between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will be appointed or the editorial committee decides based on the intensity of the review reports from both reviewers.
Editorial Decision
The Editorial Office (Editor-in-Chief) decides whether to reject each paper or accept it, with no changes, minor amendments, or major revisions.
Revision & Rebuttal
The author/s will receive the reviewer`s comments from the editor and be advised to revise the document based on the comments raised by the reviewers and the editor. The authors are advised to resubmit the revised manuscript and the responses to each reviewer's comments as well as that of the editor within the limited time to the editor. If the authors need additional time to address the comments, they will advise to ask for it. If authors are unable to submit the revised document within the limited time, the manuscript will be handled as a new submission. Authors are supposed to return the revised version of the paper along with the “comment-by-response” rebuttal sheet. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected, or the editorial office has the prerogative to entertain the manuscript and send it to another reviewer.
Follow-up Assessment
The reviewers will receive the revised manuscript for a follow-up assessment to confirm whether the previously raised comments have been duly addressed. After the review process, the respective editors will submit the revised document together with the reviewer's recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief will decide about the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.
Production & Publication
The accepted manuscript will be then sent to the language editor of the journal where the authors are also requested to approve the language-edited manuscript. Edited manuscripts are transferred to the layout editor and production editor. The production editor will communicate with the authors for proofreading before publication. Galley proofs will normally be sent to the author for approval for final publication.
Choice of Reviewers
The Editor seeks advice from experts in the appropriate field. Research articles and communications are refereed by a minimum of two reviewers, review papers by at least three.
Author Suggestions
Authors are requested to suggest persons competent to review their manuscript. However, please note that this will be treated only as a suggestion, and the final selection of reviewers is exclusively the Editor's decision. The authors’ names are revealed to the referees, but not vice versa.
Confidentiality
Authors should treat all communication with the Editorial Office of the journal as confidential, which includes correspondence with the Editors-in-Chief on behalf of the journal, and/or handling editors and reviewers' reports unless explicit consent has been received to share the information obtained through the process. Reviewers are, therefore, required to respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond the information released by the journal. Thus, authors should feel confident that their manuscripts are not shared with third parties outside of the LJAAS Editorial Office.
