Peer Review Policy
The Agribusiness and Agri-food Marketing Journal -AAMJ applies a rigorous double-blind peer review policy to ensure fairness and scientific quality at every stage of the editorial process — from initial submission to final decisions and potential appeals.
Peer Review Criteria
All manuscripts selected for peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers chosen by the editors. Authors may suggest appropriate reviewers and may also request the exclusion of specific individuals or institutions. These requests are considered carefully, but the final decision on reviewer selection rests solely with the editor.
Confidentiality
Authors, reviewers and editors must uphold strict confidentiality throughout the editorial and peer review process.
If a reviewer wishes to consult colleagues during the evaluation of a manuscript, he must inform the editor in advance and ensure confidentiality is maintained. The names of any such collaborators must be reported in the final review.
Correspondence with the journal, review reports, and other confidential materials may not be published or disclosed without prior written consent.
The AAMJ commits to preserving reviewer anonymity, though confidentiality may not be guaranteed in the event of a legal order requiring disclosure.
Integrity and Best Practices
The AAMJ reserves the right to contact funders, institutions or other journals in cases of suspected ethical or scientific misconduct. The peer review process is conducted through the online platform provided by ELGI Publishing, ensuring secure and anonymous evaluation.
Review Process
All manuscripts undergo initial screening by the editorial team. Only those that meet the journal's scientific and editorial criteria are forwarded for formal review. Typically, two or three reviewers are assigned per manuscript, though more may be invited for specialized input (e.g., statistical or technical assessments).
The process is double-blind to preserve impartiality. Reviewers may recommend a course of action, but should be aware that other reviewers might have differing expertise or opinions.
Editors may need to base their final decision on a synthesis of potentially conflicting reports. The most helpful reviews are those that present balanced, well-reasoned arguments outlining both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. In case of a tie or disagreement, a third reviewer may be consulted.
Final editorial decisions are based on the quality of reasoning, not the number of recommendations. Editorial decisions are not determined by vote counts or numeric scores, and the majority opinion does not automatically prevail.
The editor’s responsibility is to consider the overall quality of arguments from reviewers and authors, as well as any relevant information unavailable to both.
Commitments and Responsibilities
By agreeing to review, the reviewer also commits to evaluating revised versions of the manuscript when needed. However, the editor may choose not to resend the manuscript if the authors have not sufficiently addressed prior comments.
All reviewer feedback must be responded to in full. Constructive, detailed and objective critiques are strongly encouraged. If only one reviewer recommends rejection, the editor may consult the others to determine whether that review applies an unduly harsh standard.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Subject matter expertise
- Professional reputation
- Past performance
- Quality of previous reviews
The journal values thorough, technically sound reviewers who justify their comments — whether positive or critical.
The AAMJ is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, and encourages the nomination of reviewers from a variety of regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and other underrepresented groups.
Reviewer comments must be:
- Well-argued and evidence-based
- Cited when applicable
- Relevant to the manuscript’s content
- Aligned with the reviewer’s area of expertise
Reviewers should not suggest changes unless essential for improving the scientific clarity of the manuscript. If unsure about standards within a specific discipline, reviewers are encouraged to contact the editor for guidance.
Anonymity and Transparency
The AAMJ does not reveal the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, unless the reviewer voluntarily signs their review. This option is available to reviewers who are comfortable being identified.
Reviewers are advised not to reveal their identity to authors during the review process without the editor’s consent. If such identification occurs, the author should immediately inform the editor.
