Peer Review Process for New Valley Journal of Agricultural Science (COPE Compliant)

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Assessment

• Manuscripts submitted to the New Valley Journal of Agricultural Science undergo initial checks by the editorial office for adherence to submission guidelines, plagiarism, and general scientific rigor.
• Manuscripts passing this screening are assigned to a suitable handling editor with expertise in the relevant field.

2. Handling Editor and Initial Evaluation

• The handling editor oversees the peer review process and makes initial judgments about the manuscript's scientific merit and potential for publication.
• The handling editor may perform a preliminary assessment and decide whether the manuscript should be:
• Sent for peer review: If the manuscript is deemed scientifically sound and potentially publishable after revisions.
• Rejected outright: If the manuscript falls significantly short of the journal's standards.

3. Reviewer Selection and Conflict of Interest

• The handling editor selects at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and no conflicts of interest.
• Potential reviewers are asked to declare any competing interests, including personal, professional, or financial relationships that could compromise the objectivity of their review.
• If conflicts of interest are identified, the reviewer is recused from the process.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

• The review process is conducted double-blind to maintain anonymity for both authors and reviewers.
• Reviewers are provided with the manuscript, clear review guidelines, and anonymized author identities.
• Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's originality, validity, significance, clarity, and adherence to ethical research practices.

5. Reviewer Reports and Feedback

• Reviewers submit their reports with constructive criticism, providing detailed feedback on the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses.
• They provide clear and respectful recommendations for:
• Acceptance: The manuscript is deemed ready for publication as is.
• Minor revision: The manuscript requires minor revisions before consideration for publication.
• Major revision: The manuscript requires significant revisions before reconsideration.
• Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

6. Editorial Decision and Communication

• The handling editor carefully considers all reviewer reports and makes a recommendation for the manuscript to the editor-in-chief or the editorial board.
• The final decision on publication is made by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board.
• The authors are promptly notified of the editorial decision and provided with the reviewers' comments, regardless of the outcome.

7. Revisions and Re-Review

• If revisions are requested, the authors are given a specific timeframe to address the reviewers' comments.
• Revised manuscripts are typically sent back to the original reviewers for reevaluation.
• If necessary, additional reviewers may be consulted.

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

• Manuscripts that meet all the journal's criteria are accepted for publication.
• The final accepted version undergoes rigorous copy-editing, typesetting, and proofreading to ensure accuracy and clarity.
• Accepted manuscripts are published online and/or in print according to the journal's publication schedule.

9. Publication Ethics and Transparency

• The New Valley Journal of Agricultural Science adheres to the highest standards of ethical publishing as outlined by COPE.
• All ethical concerns raised during the review process are investigated thoroughly, and appropriate action is taken.
• The journal is committed to transparency and integrity in its peer review process, ensuring clear communication and accountability throughout the publication journey.

Further Information

For more detailed information on COPE guidelines and best practices in research and publication ethics, please visit COPE’s website.