Manuscript Submission and Peer Review Process of MAJ
The Madras Agricultural Journal (MAJ) is committed to upholding the highest academic integrity and
excellence through a rigorous peer review process. This ensures that all submissions meet the journal’s
quality, originality, and relevance standards.
1. Initial Submission and Quality Check (QC)
All submissions to MAJ undergo an initial Quality Check (QC), where manuscripts are
reviewed for:
- Completeness:
Ensuring all necessary sections and supporting documents are included.
- Language
Quality: Verifying grammar, clarity, and readability.
- Plagiarism
Screening: Using standard detection tools to ensure originality.
- Title’s
Suitability: Confirming alignment with the journal’s scope.
Manuscripts that do not meet these basic criteria are returned to authors for revision or
rejection at this stage.
2. Editorial Assessment
- After passing the QC, The
Editor-in-Chief (EiC) evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review.
- Whether the topic falls within
the journal’s scope.
- If an Editor is an author or has
a conflict of interest, an alternative reviewer is assigned.
- Assignment of a qualified
reviewer with sound technical expertise in the relevant research area.
- A member of the Editorial Board
oversees the peer review process to maintain transparency and fairness.
3. Reviewer Selection
- Expert reviewers are chosen
based on subject expertise, publication record, and professional standing.
- Each manuscript is reviewed by
at least two independent reviewers.
- Atmost care and scrutiny are
implemented before assigning reviewers to avoid any potential conflict of interest
4. Peer Review Process
MAJ follows a structured peer review model, employing the rigorous
double-anonymous peer review process
- Key Features of the Peer Review Process:
- Double-Anonymous
Review: Both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process
to ensure impartiality and eliminate potential biases.
- How we ensure anonymity
?
- At MAJ, the reviewers are
provided with a blinded manuscript which is completely free of author identification factors ( Author
names, lab details, Acknowledgement details, Funding details,contact etc.,).
- To ensure this we collect a
Main file/blinded manuscript ( Title of MS and MS content) and Title file ( Title & author
details) separately at the submission stage.
- The online journal management
system displays only the Manuscript ID along with title of the manuscript to the reviewers once assigned
for review.
- Only the manuscript ID is
mentioned in all the communications to the reviewer
- The Review of the manuscript is
submitted to the Editor in Chief by both the reviewers in a specified time frame, which ensures that the
complete review is forwarded to the authors from Editor in Chief’s desk.
- The reviewer details remain
confidential and are not disclosed to the author in any communication, even after the successful
publication of the manuscript to avoid any biases.
- Conflict of Interest
:The reviewers declare if they find any conflict of Interest in the manuscipt assigned to
them for review. A fresh reviewer is assigned review in such case. Atmost care and scrutiny are
implemented before assigning reviewers.
Review Criteria
- Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following:
- Originality and significance of
the research.
- Rigor and appropriateness of the
methodology.
- Clarity, structure, and quality
of writing.
- Validity of data, analysis, and
conclusions.
- Adherence to ethical standards.
5. Reviewer Feedback & Author Revisions
- Reviewers provide detailed and
constructive feedback.
- Authors must address all
comments and submit a detailed rebuttal letter.
- A detailed rebuttal letter
explaining revisions is required with resubmissions.
6. Decision Making
- Accept:
Manuscript meets all standards and requires no further revisions.
- Minor
Revisions: Manuscript is nearly acceptable but needs minor improvements.
- Major
Revisions: Manuscript requires substantial modifications before reconsideration.
-
Reject:Manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality or scope.
7. Resubmission & Final Review
- If major corrections are
recommended, the revised manuscript is reassigned to the same reviewer for final assessment.
- If minor corrections are
suggested, the revised manuscript is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for the final decision.
- Final Approval:
The editorial team reviews revised submissions for completeness and compliance before final
acceptance and publication by Editor in Chief.
8. Post-Review Verification & Publication
- Accepted manuscripts undergo
final editing, formatting, and DOI assignment before publication.
- The journal follows strict
confidentiality in handling all submissions.
9. Ethics, Confidentiality & Reviewer Acknowledgment
- All submissions are handled with
strict confidentiality.
- Reviewers must disclose any
conflicts of interest and follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
- Reviewer contributions are
acknowledged as part of the journal’s commitment to ethical publishing.
This transparent and objective peer review process ensures that all published articles meet high academic and
ethical standards, contributing to the integrity of the scholarly record.
10. Manuscript Turnaround Time
- Submission to First Decision:
4–6 weeks
- Acceptance to Publication: 2–3
weeks
- Total Time: Approximately 8–12
weeks
11. Acceptance Rate
Current Acceptance Rate: 60%
12. Continuous Policy Updates
The peer review policy is reviewed periodically to align with evolving best practices in
scholarly publishing.
For inquiries, please contact us at maj@tnau.ac.in.