About the Journal
The Journal on Agro-industrial Research and Development (JAIRD) is open to the global community of scholars who wish to have their researches published in a peer-reviewed journal. The Editorial Board invites guest editors and peer reviewers from Philippines and abroad for every issue of the journal.
Aims
This Research Journal is viewed as a premier journal that publishes peer-reviewed higher education researches. Publishable research articles embrace any research methodology as long as the articles meet the publication standards of the journal. The journal primarily has, as its audience, scientists, academicians, graduate students, and other individuals interested in pushing the frontiers of higher education research.
Scope
The primary criterion for publication in the Journal on Agro-industrial Research and Development (JAIRD) is the significance of the contribution an article makes to the body of knowledge. The content areas of interest include the various disciplines of knowledge in higher education that includes;
- Environmental Science
- Crop Production and Management
- Agricultural Machinery and Technology
- Soil Management and Soil Science
- Agro-Processing and Value Addition
- Resource Management and Sustainability
- Agribusiness and Market Dynamics
Recruiting Referees
The task of picking reviewers is the responsibility of the editorial board. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts to referee the manuscript. In some cases, the authors may suggest the referees’ names subject to the Editorial Board’s approval. The referees must have an excellent track record as researchers and must hold the distinction of having published in ASEAN Citation Index, Scopus, Web of Science and other international indexed journal, and have the expertise of the topic under review. Referees are not selected from among the author’s close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that may arise. The Editorial Board often invites research authors to name people whom they considered qualified to referee their work. The author’s input in selecting referees is solicited because academic writing typically is very specialized. The identities of the referees selected by the Editorial Board are kept unknown to research authors. However, the reviewer’s identity can be disclosed under some special circumstances.
The Editorial Board decides on the acceptability of the manuscript after thorough evaluation on the compliance of the authors to the comments, suggestions and recommendations of the referees. A manuscript is accepted when it is endorsed for acceptance/publication by at least two referees and if the compliance of revisions is properly made within the given time.
Peer Review Process
The Editorial Board sends advance copies of an author’s work to experts in the field (known as referee’s or “reviewers”) through email or a web-based manuscript processing system. There are two or three referees for a given article. Two are experts of the topic of research and one is an expert in research and statistics who shall review the technical components of the research. These referees return to the board the evaluation of the work that indicates the observed weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. The board then evaluates the referees’ comments and notes opinion of the manuscript before passing the decision with the referees’ comments back to the author(s).
Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection
A manuscript is accepted when it is:
(1) endorsed for publication by 2 or 3 referees,
(2) the instructions of the reviewers are substantially complied; and
(3) the manuscript must pass the plagiarism detection test with a score of at least 80 for originality, otherwise the manuscript is rejected.
The referee’s evaluations include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, often chosen from options provided by the journal. Most recommendations are along the following lines:
- To unconditionally accept the manuscript
- To accept it in the event that its author improve it based on referees’ recommendation,
- To reject it, but encourage revision and invite re submission,
- To reject it outright
In situation where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When the editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the board will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie breaker. In the case of ties, the board may invite authors to reply to referees criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If the editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the board may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, the board will convey communications back and forth between an author and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate a point. Even in such case, however the board does not allow the referees to confer with each other, and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to convince anyone to change his/her opinions.
Plagiarism Detection
Contributors are advised to use software for plagiarism detection to increase the manuscripts’ chances of acceptance. The editorial office uses licensed software to screen research articles of plagiarism detection test.
Appropriateness of Citation Format
The Journal on Agro-industrial Research and Development (JAIRD) recognizes the paramount importance of clear and consistent citation practices in scholarly publications within the realm of agro-industrial research. Considering the nature discipline of agro-industrial studies, the contributors are advised to use the citation format prescribed as American Psychological Association (APA).
