Peer Review Process

AGRINOVA: Jurnal Inovasi Agribisnis implements a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process. This means that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the entire review process to ensure an unbiased and objective evaluation.

The peer review process follows these systematic steps:

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editorial Board to check for:

  • Alignment with the Focus and Scope.

  • Compliance with the Author Guidelines and template.

  • Plagiarism detection using Turnitin (Similarity index must be < 25%). Manuscripts that fail this stage will be rejected or returned for technical corrections.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of agribusiness or agricultural technology. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research track record.

3. Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on several criteria:

  • Originality: Does the paper provide a new contribution to the field?

  • Methodology: Is the research design sound and clearly described?

  • Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and logically structured?

  • Significance: Are the results and discussion relevant to agribusiness innovation?

4. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports, the Section Editor or Editor-in-Chief will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept Submission: The manuscript is ready for the production stage without further changes.

  • Revisions Required: The author must address specific comments and minor corrections.

  • Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major revisions and will undergo a second round of review.

  • Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal.

5. Final Approval

The final decision to publish a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the reviewers' recommendations and the authors' responses to the suggested revisions.