Peer Review Process

1. REVIEW MODEL: DOUBLE-BLIND PEER REVIEW

Journal of Agriculture and Local Food (JALF) employs a strict double-blind peer review model. This means:

• Reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s).

• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This model ensures that the evaluation of manuscripts is based solely on the intellectual and scientific merit of the work, free from bias related to author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or academic rank. JALF adheres to COPE's guidelines on fair and transparent peer review.

---

2. REVIEW FLOWCHART AND STAGES

The peer review process at JALF consists of five (5) distinct stages:

Total estimated time from submission to first decision: 4–6 weeks.
Total estimated time from submission to publication: 10–14 weeks.

---

3. DETAILED STAGE-BY-STAGE PROCESS

STAGE 1: PRE-CHECK AND COMPLIANCE SCREENING

Duration: 1–3 working days

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts a technical compliance check to ensure the manuscript meets the journal's minimum requirements. Manuscripts that fail any of the following checks will be returned to authors for revision or desk-rejected immediately:

Mandatory Requirements:

1. Manuscript Template: Must strictly follow the official JALF template.

2. Similarity Check: Screened using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate). Maximum acceptable similarity index: <30% , with no single source exceeding 12% .

3. Language Quality: Must demonstrate professional English proficiency.

4. Proofreading Certificate: MANDATORY for 2026 submissions; must be uploaded as a supplementary file.

5. Authorship Compliance:

   • Multi-authored submissions are mandatory.

   • Sole authorship is permitted ONLY for scholars invited by the editors or those with an established, reputable record in agroecology, food systems, or sustainability science (subject to verification by the Editor-in-Chief).

6. CRediT Statement: Contributor Roles Taxonomy statement must be included.

7. Data Availability Statement: Must be included.

8. Competing Interests Statement: Must be included.

9. Ethics Approval (if applicable) : Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval number and date must be provided for research involving human subjects or animals.

Outcome:

• PASS: Proceeds to Stage 2 (Editorial Assessment).

• FAIL: Returned to author for revision (one chance only) OR Desk Rejected.

---

STAGE 2: EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT (DESK REVIEW)

Duration: 3–5 working days
Responsible: Editor-in-Chief / Section Editor

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor conducts a scientific and thematic assessment of the manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Fit with Focus and Scope: Does the manuscript explicitly address agroecological transitions, local food systems, or related themes? Manuscripts falling outside the journal's scope will be desk-rejected immediately.

2. Scientific Originality and Novelty: Does the manuscript present a significant contribution to the field?

3. Methodological Rigor: Are the research design, methods, and analysis appropriate and sound?

4. Ethical Compliance: Are there any ethical concerns (e.g., fabricated data, authorship disputes, undeclared AI use)?

Desk Rejection Criteria:
JALF will desk-reject manuscripts that:

• Fall outside the journal's Aim and Scope.

• Use an incorrect format or fail to follow author guidelines.

• Exhibit poor English grammar that impedes understanding.

• Lack mandatory proofreading certificate (2026 policy).

• Have similarity index exceeding the threshold.

• Are single-authored without editorial invitation.

• Show clear signs of data fabrication or plagiarism.

• Are submitted concurrently to another journal.

Outcome:

• ACCEPT: Proceeds to Stage 3 (External Peer Review).

• REJECT (Desk Rejection) : Author notified with reasons. No further review.

---

STAGE 3: EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

Duration: 3–4 weeks
Responsible: Minimum 2 Independent Reviewers

3.1 Reviewer Selection

• Reviewers are selected based on expertise alignment with the manuscript's subject matter.

• Reviewers are independent (not affiliated with the authors' institution) and international (Scopus encourages diverse geographic representation).

• Reviewers are verified for the absence of competing interests (recent collaborators, co-authors, same institution, personal relationships).

• AI Restriction: The use of Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to draft review reports or analyze manuscript content is strictly prohibited. Violation will result in immediate termination of the reviewer and removal from the database.

3.2 Review Process

1. Invitation: Reviewers receive an invitation with the abstract and a 3-day deadline to respond.

2. Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document.

3. Review Report: Reviewers complete a structured review form covering:

   • Originality and Novelty

   • Methodological Soundness

   • Clarity of Presentation

   • Significance of Findings

   • Contribution to Agroecology/Local Food Systems

   • Specific Recommendations for Improvement

3.3 Review Recommendations
Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

3.4 Quality Assurance

• All review reports are assessed by the Editor for quality, objectivity, and constructiveness.

• Personal criticism of authors is strictly prohibited.

• Late reviews (beyond 4 weeks) are subject to reminder system; persistent delays result in removal from reviewer database.

---

STAGE 4: EDITORIAL DECISION

Duration: 3–5 working days
Responsible: Editor-in-Chief

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment, the Editor-in-Chief renders a final decision:

Decision Letter:

• Includes anonymized reviewer comments.

• Clearly states the deadline for revisions.

• Outlines the next steps.

Appeals:
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed appeal letter to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the decision date. Appeals must provide substantive methodological or ethical grounds. Frivolous appeals will be summarily dismissed. Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor uninvolved in the original decision.

---

STAGE 5: POST-REVIEW AND PRODUCTION

Duration: 1–2 weeks

5.1 Author Revision

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript with tracked changes or a highlighted version.

• Authors must provide a Response to Reviewers (Point-by-Point) table detailing how each reviewer comment was addressed.

5.2 Final Screening

• Plagiarism Check: Final similarity check.

• Copyediting: Professional copyediting for language, grammar, and style.

• Typesetting: Conversion to XML/PDF/HTML formats.

• Proofreading: Final author proof approval.

5.3 Publication

• Manuscript assigned to an Issue (April or November).

• DOI assigned and registered with Crossref.

• Published online with final metadata.

• Indexed in Dimensions, Google Scholar, and submitted to Scopus.

---

4. SPECIAL POLICIES

4.1 Handling of Competing Interests

• Editors: Must recuse themselves from manuscripts where they have a competing interest (co-author, collaborator, same institution, personal relationship). The manuscript will be reassigned to another editor.

• Reviewers: Must decline review invitations if they identify any competing interest. Failure to declare a competing interest discovered post-review may result in termination of the reviewer agreement and notification to COPE.

• Authors: Must declare all competing interests at submission.

4.2 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

• AI as Author: Prohibited. AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

• AI Assistance: Use of AI for writing, data analysis, or figure generation must be fully disclosed in the manuscript (e.g., in Methods or Acknowledgments).

• Reviewers: Use of AI to draft review reports is strictly prohibited.

4.3 Misconduct and Allegations

• Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, fabricated data, fake peer review) will be investigated following COPE Flowcharts.

• Sanctions include: rejection, submission ban (2-5 years), retraction, and institutional notification.

4.4 Confidentiality

• All parties (editors, reviewers, editorial staff) must maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts.

• Unpublished materials may not be used in anyone's own research without explicit written consent.

---

5. REVIEWER RECOGNITION

JALF values the critical contribution of its peer reviewers. The journal offers:

1. Public Acknowledgment: Annual list of reviewers published in the final issue of each volume.

2. DOI-based Review Recognition: Option for reviewers to have their review activity recorded and verified (e.g., Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service).

3. Certificate of Review: Available upon request.

---

6. REVIEW TIMELINE SUMMARY

---

7. CONTACT FOR PEER REVIEW INQUIRIES

For questions regarding the peer review process, appeals, or reviewer applications:

Editorial Office
Journal of Agriculture and Local Food (JALF)
PT. Gammabeta Edu and Tech
Jl. Rijali RT 003 RW 001, Ambon 97123, Maluku, Indonesia
E-mail: admin@gammabeta.id
OAI: https://gammabeta.id/ojs/index.php/jalf/oai

---