Peer Review Policy

1. Purpose

The Peer Review Policy of Gomal Journal of Agriculture and Biology (GJAB) aims to maintain the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research articles. Peer review is an essential aspect of scholarly publishing, ensuring that only high-quality research is disseminated to the scientific community.

2. Types of Peer Review

GJAB employs a Triple-blind peer review process, where both the identities of the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other. This ensures impartiality and fairness in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in the relevant field.

3. Review Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to GJAB are evaluated based on the following criteria:

- Originality: Novelty and uniqueness of the research contribution.

- Methodology: Soundness and appropriateness of the research methods.

- Clarity: Coherence, organization, and clarity of presentation.

- Significance: Importance and relevance of the research findings to the field.

- Ethical Considerations: Adherence to ethical standards in research conduct and reporting.

4. Review Process

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess their suitability for peer review. Submissions deemed appropriate are then assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive feedback and recommendations for improvement. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts based on the reviewers' comments before a final decision is made.

5. Confidentiality

All parties involved in the peer review process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, are required to maintain the confidentiality of the review process. Reviewers are expected to treat manuscripts as privileged information and refrain from disclosing any details about the review process or manuscript content.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers are asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest that may bias their evaluation of the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may arise from personal or professional relationships, competitive interests, or financial affiliations. Reviewers with conflicts of interest are recused from the review process, and alternative reviewers are sought.

7. Editorial Decision

Based on the feedback provided by the reviewers, the editorial team makes a decision on whether to accept, reject, or request revisions to the manuscript. The decision is communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' comments. Authors are given the opportunity to address any concerns raised by the reviewers before a final decision is reached.

8. Appeals

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may appeal the decision by providing a detailed response addressing the reviewers' comments and explaining why they believe the decision should be reconsidered. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team, and a final decision is made based on the merits of the appeal.

9. Transparency

GJAB is committed to transparency in the peer review process. Authors are provided with feedback from reviewers to help improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviewers' comments are treated confidentially but may be shared with the authors upon request. The names of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors unless the reviewers choose to sign their reports.

10. Revision Policy

Authors are encouraged to carefully consider the feedback provided by the reviewers and make necessary revisions to their manuscripts. Revised manuscripts should address all the concerns raised by the reviewers and clearly indicate the changes made. Revised manuscripts are subject to re-evaluation by the reviewers to ensure that the concerns have been adequately addressed.