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. The peer-review process is blind for all submitted manuscripts. All manuscripts submitted in 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. Either an Editor or on the hotline he or she has any ever-competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for handling the peer-review process.
01
Preliminary Review
All submissions to LJAAS are subjected to a preliminary review process by relevant technical editorial board members and the editor-in-chief-in-chief. The submitted manuscript will be checked for its 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.
02
Blind Assignment
Suitable and sound manuscripts will be then assigned to the subject-specific editors to go through the review processes. Two or more researchers/expert in the subject of the manuscript will be appointed anonymously for the review of each manuscript (double-blind). The reviewers read the manuscript and may recommend that the manuscript be accepted with no change, rejected, or revised heavily preceding re-evaluated or recommended changes. Whenever contrast of opinion arises between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will be appointed or the editorial committee reviews panel on the inventory of the review reports from such reviewers.
03
Editorial Decision
The Editorial Office finalizes its decision whether to reject each paper or accept it, with no changes, minor amendments, or major revisions.
04
Revision & Rebuttal
The author/s will receive the reviewer/s comments from the editor and be advised to revise the manuscript based on the comments raised by the reviewers and the editors. 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 a timeframe not to exceed 15. If the authors need extra time to address the comments, they will write to seek. But 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 resubmit the revised version of the paper along with the "comment by response" schema. Each author should state clear in light of competing report/comments made by another reviewer may fundamentally determine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected, or the editorial office has the prerogative to extension in the manuscript and resubmit to another reviewer.
05
Follow-up Assessment
The reviewers will review the revised manuscript for a follow-up process to confirm whether the previously raised comments have been duly addressed. After the review process, the responsible 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.
06
Production & Publication
The accepted manuscript will be then sent to the language editor of the journal where the authors are also required to approve the language-edited manuscript. Edited manuscripts are transferred to the layout artist 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.
Process Duration: APPROXIMATELY 60 DAYS
Choice of Reviewers
The Editor seeks peer experts in the appropriate field, known in climate and agricultural domains, to avoid disclosure of research and review property or failure areas.
Author Suggestions
Authors are requested to suggest peer-reviewers 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,/Assistant The authors' names are revealed to the referees, but not the reverse.
Confidentiality
Authors should treat all communication with the editorial office of the journal as confidential, which includes correspondence with the Editor-in-Chief, or behalf of the journal, and/or funding authors or reviewers; unless explicit consent has been received to share the information finished through and around. 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, expect the information released by the journal. Thus, authors should feel confident that their manuscripts are not shared with any other outside of the LJAAS editorial Board.
