Peer-Review Process
The Journal of Smart Agriculture and Environmental Technology (JOSAET) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, and editorial independence 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.
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, adherence to the journal's submission requirements, and compliance with relevant publication ethics and research integrity standards.
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 are selected on the basis of their expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or 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 and relevance of references; and
- ethical and research integrity considerations.
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments, together with 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 automatically bound by the reviewers' recommendations.
5. Author Revision
When revision is required, authors must respond carefully to the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or providing a reasoned response where a suggested change has not been made.
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, compliance with ethical standards, 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 and associated materials as confidential documents. They must not disclose, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments and must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation.
Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, supplementary materials, or other confidential information to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or other tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Generative artificial intelligence or other automated tools must not be used to generate or substantially prepare peer-review reports. Limited use of automated tools for language editing may be permitted only when confidentiality is maintained. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and content of their review reports.
Special Issues
If JOSAET publishes a special issue or a collection managed by guest editors, the same peer-review standards and publication ethics requirements apply as for regular issues.
All research articles submitted to special issues 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.