All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Agrotek Tropika (JAT) undergo an initial editorial screening to determine their suitability for publication. The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates each submission based on the journal's editorial policies and the following criteria:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope, particularly tropical agricultural sciences and related disciplines.
• Originality of the manuscript, including plagiarism and similarity screening using Turnitin, with a maximum acceptable similarity index of 15%.
• Compliance with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript formatting requirements, and reference style.
• Appropriateness and quality of the scientific language, either English or Indonesian.
• Completeness of the manuscript and adherence to ethical standards in scientific publication.

Manuscripts that do not meet these preliminary requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before proceeding to peer review.

1. Double-Blind Peer Review

All manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the research. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on its originality, scientific contribution, methodological validity, quality of data analysis, interpretation of findings, relevance to tropical agriculture, and overall presentation.

The peer review process is intended to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, integrity, and academic relevance.

2. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor selects potential reviewers based on their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, and relevance to the manuscript's subject area.

Reviewer selection also considers the independence of the reviewers and the absence of potential conflicts of interest.

Selected reviewers receive an invitation through the journal's online submission system. Before accepting the invitation, reviewers are expected to evaluate whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise, whether they can complete the review within the specified timeframe, and whether any competing interests could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers who are unable to undertake the evaluation are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly. They may also recommend alternative qualified reviewers when appropriate.

3. Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers are expected to examine the manuscript carefully and provide an objective, comprehensive, and constructive scientific assessment.

The evaluation includes the following aspects:

• Originality and scientific contribution: The novelty, significance, and contribution of the research to existing scientific knowledge.
• Title and abstract: The accuracy, clarity, and consistency of the title and abstract with the manuscript's content.
• Introduction: The adequacy of the research background, identification of the research gap, relevance of the literature review, and clarity of the research objectives.
• Materials and methods: The appropriateness of the research design, experimental procedures, sampling techniques, treatments, replication, observed variables, and statistical methods.
• Results and discussion: The accuracy and clarity of the research findings, appropriateness of statistical analyses, critical interpretation of results, and comparison with relevant previous studies.
• Conclusions: The consistency of the conclusions with the research objectives and the evidence presented.
• References: The relevance, credibility, currency, and consistency of cited literature.
• Scientific presentation: The organization, clarity, language quality, and adherence to the journal's manuscript preparation guidelines.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed comments identifying the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement.

Reviews must be based on scientific merit and supported by clear reasoning. Personal criticism, discriminatory comments, and unsupported judgments are not acceptable.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Upon completing their evaluation, reviewers submit their comments and recommendations through the journal's online review system.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and is suitable for publication.
• Revisions Required (Minor Revision): The manuscript requires limited revisions to improve clarity, presentation, interpretation, or other aspects that do not substantially affect its scientific validity.
• Resubmit for Review (Major Revision): The manuscript requires substantial improvements, particularly concerning methodology, data analysis, interpretation, or scientific presentation, before it can be reconsidered.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript contains fundamental scientific weaknesses, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not meet the journal's publication standards.

Reviewers may also submit an annotated manuscript containing detailed corrections or suggestions when necessary.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor carefully consider the reviewers' assessments before reaching an editorial decision.

The final decision is based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, the significance of the reviewers' comments, the authors' responses, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards.

When reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations, the handling editor may invite an additional independent reviewer to obtain further scientific evaluation.

The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the authorized handling editor. Reviewer recommendations serve as essential inputs to the editorial decision-making process but do not independently determine the publication outcome.

6. Communication of Review Results

Following the editorial assessment, the corresponding author receives an official notification through the journal's online submission system.

The notification includes the editorial decision and relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the process.

For manuscripts requiring revision, the editor provides constructive feedback to assist authors in improving the scientific quality and presentation of their work.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's scientific or editorial standards may be rejected, accompanied by an explanation of the principal reasons for the decision.

7. Manuscript Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision request are expected to carefully address all comments and recommendations provided by the reviewers and editor.

The revised manuscript must be submitted through the journal's online submission system within the specified revision period.

Authors should also provide a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation has not been followed, an appropriate scientific justification should be provided.

All revisions should be clearly identified to facilitate subsequent editorial assessment.

8. Re-Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling editor to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns.

Manuscripts requiring major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.

For manuscripts requiring only minor revisions, the handling editor may conduct the follow-up assessment without initiating another external review round.

The revision and re-evaluation process may continue until the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial requirements or until the editor determines that further revision is unlikely to resolve the identified deficiencies.

9. Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editorial team determines that it has satisfactorily addressed the reviewers' comments and meets the scientific, ethical, and editorial standards of Jurnal Agrotek Tropika.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, which includes copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, and final publication preparation.

Authors may be requested to review and approve the final proofs before publication.

Accepted articles are subsequently published online in accordance with the journal's publication schedule.

All published articles are made freely accessible through the Jurnal Agrotek Tropika website under the journal's open access policy.

10. Confidentiality and Publication Ethics

Jurnal Agrotek Tropika is committed to maintaining confidentiality, transparency, impartiality, and academic integrity throughout the peer review process.

The journal follows the principles and ethical recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information for personal or professional purposes.

Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editor before undertaking the review.

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct must be reported to the Editorial Office for further investigation.

The journal reserves the right to take appropriate editorial action in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

11. Review Timeline

The peer review process is generally expected to be completed within 12 weeks from the initial editorial screening. However, this timeframe may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the number of revision rounds required.

The Editorial Office endeavors to conduct the review process as efficiently as possible while maintaining rigorous scientific evaluation.

Authors will be notified of editorial decisions and revision requirements through the journal's online submission system.

 

Editorial Board

Jurnal Agrotek Tropika (JAT)

Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture

Universitas Lampung, Indonesia

Website: https://jurnal.fp.unila.ac.id/index.php/JA