Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
Agricultural Science Horizons (ASH), published by the Gondars Institute of Research and Skill Development (GIRSD), is committed to maintaining a fair, rigorous, transparent, and efficient peer review system that ensures the publication of high-quality scholarly research.
The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review model, whereby the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from one another throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias and promotes objective, impartial, and evidence-based editorial decisions.
This policy is developed in accordance with internationally recognized best practices in scholarly publishing and aligns with ethical standards promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and transparency principles commonly expected by DOAJ, Scopus, and Web of Science indexed journals.
1. Purpose of Peer Review
The primary purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, significance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts before publication.
The peer review process serves as a quality assurance mechanism that strengthens the reliability and credibility of the scholarly record.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review Model
Agricultural Science Horizons follows a double-blind peer review system.
Under this model, reviewers do not know the identities of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.
Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that removes identifying information wherever possible before peer review.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before entering peer review.
The editorial office evaluates manuscripts for completeness, adherence to journal guidelines, relevance to the journal scope, ethical compliance, language quality, originality, plagiarism screening results, and overall scientific suitability.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum standards may be rejected without external peer review.
4. Reviewer Selection Process
Suitable reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication history, research experience, and subject specialization relevant to the manuscript.
The journal seeks independent reviewers who can provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations.
Reviewers with actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest should decline review invitations.
5. Number of Reviewers
Each manuscript is ordinarily evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers.
Additional reviewers may be invited when expert opinions conflict, multidisciplinary expertise is required, or further evaluation is necessary.
6. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess several aspects of the manuscript, including originality, scientific significance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, data interpretation, statistical appropriateness where applicable, clarity of presentation, quality of references, and contribution to existing knowledge.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that help authors improve their work.
7. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, conduct objective evaluations, avoid personal criticism, disclose conflicts of interest, and complete reviews within the requested timeframe.
Manuscripts received for review must not be shared, copied, distributed, or used for personal advantage.
Reviewers are encouraged to report ethical concerns, potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data irregularities, or other issues identified during the evaluation process.
8. Editorial Decision Categories
Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations, editorial assessment, and scientific merit.
Possible decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for further review, or rejection.
The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision.
9. Revision Process
Authors receiving revision requests are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response addressing each reviewer comment.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.
10. Review Timeline
Agricultural Science Horizons strives to conduct peer review in a timely and efficient manner while maintaining rigorous evaluation standards.
Review durations may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of required revisions.
The journal endeavors to communicate editorial decisions without unnecessary delays.
11. Confidentiality
All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and supporting documents are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and review processes.
Confidential information must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals without editorial permission.
12. Conflict of Interest Management
Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.
Individuals with conflicts may be recused from handling or reviewing manuscripts when appropriate.
13. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned explanation supported by scientific evidence.
Appeals are independently evaluated, and additional expert opinions may be obtained when necessary.
The journal does not guarantee reversal of editorial decisions following an appeal.
14. Ethical Oversight During Peer Review
The journal may suspend or terminate the review process if ethical concerns arise during evaluation.
Cases involving plagiarism, data irregularities, authorship disputes, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other ethical concerns may undergo additional investigation.
15. Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts into publicly accessible artificial intelligence systems or third-party platforms that may compromise confidentiality.
Reviewers remain personally responsible for all submitted review reports and recommendations.
16. Policy Review and International Alignment
This policy may be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect evolving international publishing standards and best practices.
Agricultural Science Horizons and GIRSD remain committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and high-quality peer review system that safeguards scientific integrity.
17. Official Peer Review Statement
Agricultural Science Horizons follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another. Every manuscript undergoes editorial screening and evaluation by at least two independent reviewers before a final publication decision is made.
