Editorial process (peer review)

Peer-Review Process

The Journal of Smart Agriculture and Environmental Technology (JOSAET) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality and integrity through a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review process.

Double-Anonymous Peer Review

JOSAET uses a double-anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. This approach is intended to support an objective, fair, and impartial evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

All research articles must undergo peer review before publication.

Peer-Review Process

     1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Editorial Office to assess their suitability for the journal's aims and scope, basic academic quality, completeness, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

Manuscripts that are outside the journal's scope or do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

     2. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

Reviewers must not be members of the journal's Editorial Team and must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted manuscript.

     3. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on, where applicable:

  • originality and significance of the research;
  • scientific quality and methodological rigor;
  • validity of data analysis and interpretation;
  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
  • clarity and organization of the manuscript;
  • adequacy of references; and
  • ethical and research integrity considerations.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation regarding publication.

     4. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor based on the reviewers' evaluations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial standards.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor retains responsibility for the final decision and is not bound automatically by the reviewers' recommendations.

     5. Author Revision

When revision is required, authors must respond to reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other qualified reviewers when necessary.

     6. Final Decision and Acceptance

After the review and revision process has been completed, the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance.

Acceptance is based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and satisfactory response to reviewers' comments.

     7. Copyediting and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo final editorial and production processing, including copyediting, formatting, and proofreading, before publication.

The final published article includes the publication date and other relevant bibliographic information.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not disclose, copy, use, or distribute unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional purposes.

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments and must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence or other automated tools to generate or substantially prepare peer-review reports because of risks to confidentiality, objectivity, and research integrity.

Limited use of automated tools for language editing may be permitted only when confidentiality is maintained and the reviewer remains fully responsible for the content of the review.

Special Issues

If JOSAET publishes a special issue or a collection managed by guest editors, the same peer-review standards apply as for regular issues.

All special-issue research articles must undergo external peer review by qualified and independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the editorial quality and publication decisions of special-issue content.

Exceptions to Peer Review

JOSAET's research articles are subject to external peer review. Any non-research content that does not undergo the standard peer-review process, such as editorials, announcements, or other clearly identified editorial material, will be explicitly identified as such.

Peer-Review Timeframe

The average time from submission to completion of the initial peer-review process is approximately 4–6 weeks, although the actual timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

JOSAET does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific timeframe.