Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance


All published articles in ‘Agricultural Economics Research Review’ (AERR) Journal undergo rigorous peer review processes based on initial Chief Editor screening and then by anonymized refereeing by the referee. The ultimate purpose of peer review is to sustain the originality and quality of research work and filtration of poor quality and plagiarized articles. Peer review assures research quality.

Peer Review Policy

Peer review is an integral process that guarantees the publication of exemplary work. The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good work is published. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal AERR.

Review Process

All manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Chief Editor first screen all manuscripts along with subject matter expert in the Editorial Board. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar, or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage are informed within 2 weeks of receipt of manuscript.

Type of peer review

The Journal ‘Agricultural Economics Research Review’ uses Double-blind peer review: Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers.

How the reviewer is selected?

Reviewers are thoughtfully paired with papers in alignment with their areas of expertise. Within our reviewer database, we house their contact information and subject matter preferences, and we consistently keep this information current. In the process of selecting reviewers, we prioritize the avoidance of conflicts of interest between the authors and reviewers.

Reviewer reports

The reviewers are provided with the Guidelines for Reviewers and are asked to evaluate the manuscript on following ground:

Originality: Is the content novel?

Methodological soundness:Are the research methods (sampling, data, analytical tools, etc.) appropriate and well-executed?

Presentation of results: Are the results clearly presented, discussed and supportive of the conclusions?Is the paper well-organized and structured logically?

Proper referencing: Does the paper correctly reference relevant prior research?

Ethical compliance: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical guidelines and standards?

The reviewers are not expected to perform copyediting or language correction as part of the peer review process. Moreover, they are encouraged to refrain from expressing personal opinions on whether the paper should be published in the "Reviewer blind comments to Author" section, reserving personal opinions for the "Reviewer confidential comments to Chief Editor" section. This distinction ensures a more objective and constructive peer review process.

How long does the peer review process take?

Typically, the manuscript is reviewed within 2-8 weeks of submission to the reviewer. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another, or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion is sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the Chief Editor within 3 weeks and the Chief Editor may request further advice from the reviewers at this time.

Final report

Reviewers advise the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to revise, accept or reject the article. A decision to revise, accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. The Chief Editor may request the authors for more than one revision of a manuscript. Chief Editor's Decision is final

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees.