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.