Focus and Scope

AGRIDES: Journal of Rural Agribusiness provides a forum for publishing original research articles on topics related to agribusiness, agricultural economics, agricultural extension, and rural development. The journal welcomes contributions across the following thematic areas:

1. Agribusiness Management
Risk management, supply chain management, financial management, marketing management, production and operations management, human resource management, and entrepreneurship in agriculture.

2. Agricultural Economics and Policy
Microeconomics, macroeconomics, natural resource economics, economic modeling, and food and agricultural policy.

3. Rural Development and Sociology
Rural development, rural sociology, rural empowerment, local social and cultural capital, and farmer group dynamics.

4. Agricultural Extension and Communication
Agricultural extension systems, development communication, youth engagement in agriculture, and gender in rural contexts.

Please note that AGRIDES only accepts original manuscripts and does not consider submissions involved in multiple submission cases. Accepted article types include original research articles, review articles, and short communications, provided they are within the scope of agricultural socioeconomics.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

AGRIDES: Journal of Rural Agribusiness applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential from the author(s). The following outlines the editorial workflow:

1. Submission
Author(s) create an account on the journal website and submit their manuscript through the online submission system.

2. Initial Review by Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening based on the following criteria:
(1) Adherence to the journal's focus and scope;
(2) Originality and significance of the manuscript;
(3) Compliance with author guidelines and manuscript template;
(4) Similarity check (plagiarism screening);
(5) Submission of a completed copyright transfer agreement form.

3. Initial Review Decision
Based on the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief may issue one of the following decisions:
(1) Rejected, The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements. The author(s) will be notified with specific comments;
(2) Revision Required, The manuscript requires revision before proceeding. The author(s) should revise and resubmit through the system;
(3) Accepted for Peer Review, The manuscript is forwarded to the Section Editor for reviewer assignment.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment
The Section Editor identifies and assigns at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise. The manuscript is then distributed for evaluation through a doublw-blind peer review process.

5. Reviewer Recommendations
Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript and submits one of the following recommendations:
(1) Accept as is;
(2) Minor revision;
(3) Major revision;
(4) Reject.

6. Section Editor Decision
The Section Editor considers the reviewers' comments and recommendations before issuing one of the following decisions:
(1) Accepted, The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revision;
(2) Minor Revision, The author(s) must address minor comments and resubmit;
(3) Major Revision, The author(s) must address substantial comments and resubmit for a second round of review;
(4) Rejected, The manuscript is not accepted for publication. The author(s) will be notified with detailed comments.

7. Revision and Resubmission
If revisions are required, author(s) must revise and resubmit the manuscript through the system. The Section Editor will then determine whether to accept the revised manuscript or request a further round of revision.

8. Copyediting and Typesetting
Once the manuscript is accepted, it is forwarded to the copyeditor for language editing and typesetting. The author(s) will receive the final proof for review and approval.

9. Publication and Acceptance Letter
Upon completion of the layout and final approval, an acceptance letter along with the final version of the manuscript will be sent to the author(s). The article will then be scheduled for publication.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

This journal is open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to users or / institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to full text articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or author.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Author Fee

This journal charges author fees as follows.

Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)

Article Publication Fee: 0.00 (IDR)

Screening for Plagiarism

Articles submitted to Agrides Journal will be checked for similarity using the Turnitin program. Articles with a level of similarity of more than 20% will be rejected for publication in the journal.

Publication Ethics

Agrides is a peer-reviewed open-access international journal that is published by Universitas Lambung Mangkurat. By stating these publication ethics and publication malpractice statements, AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan pledges to ensure best practices in publishing integrity and to manage any malpractice that occurs. Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the scholarly literature world. It occurs across all subject areas and jurisdictions, and few journals are immune. Every author, editor, reviewer, publisher, and institution must take responsibility for preventing publication malpractice. This statement is based on major publishers, guidance from the Scopus title evaluation requirements for publication ethics and malpractice statements (PEMS), the declaration on research assessment (DORA), and industry organizations such as:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
• Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in this journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the society. 

Agrides as publisher takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Agrides and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and editorial board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. If the editors discover such misconduct in a submitted manuscript, they will reject it. If a published paper reveals such misconduct, we can publish a retraction and link it to the original article. The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, editors, publisher, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Agrides will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions

The editors of the Agrides journals are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

This journal has a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. Respected personnel will clarify the complaints based on the specific case. The scope of complaints encompasses all aspects of journal business processes, such as editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer practices, and peer-review manipulation, among others. We will process the complaint cases in accordance with COPE guidelines. You should send the complaint cases by email to [email protected].

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions. Generally, the editor asks reviewers to treat authors and their work with the respect they deserve and to adhere to proper reviewing etiquette. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Editorial communications can also aid the author in enhancing the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Ethical Oversight

In order to follow the rules for ethical research involving people and animals, the author must make it clear in the manuscript if the research involves chemicals, people, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any special risks that come with using them. If required, authors must provide legal ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter, whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Intelectual Property (Copyright Policy)

Here is the declaration of the journal's intellectual property or copyright policy: https://ppjp.ulm.ac.id/journal/index.php/agrides/about/submissions#copyrightNotice.

Peer-Review Process Policy

The peer-review process/policy is declared here: https://ppjp.ulm.ac.id/journal/index.php/agrides/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

This journal accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by readers. In case the reader is giving discussions and corrections toward a published article, the reader can contact the editor in chief by email to explain the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the editor in chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in the next issue as a letter to the editor. Respected authors can reply to the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the editor in chief. Therefore, editors may publish the answer as a reply to the letter to the editor.

R-W-C-R-R Policy

Article Retraction

AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan, we have a commitment to maintaining the integrity of the academic record, so there are times when there is a need to retract articles. An article would be retracted for the following reasons:

• If there are major scientific errors, that will invalidate the article's conclusion. An example is when there is evidence that that the findings in the article are unreliable either due to an honest error – a miscalculation or experimental error or as a result of misconduct – data fabrication.
• If the research and resulting findings have already been posted elsewhere without appropriate cross-referencing, justification, or permission – the case of a redundant publication.
• If there are plagiarism issues – the use of the words used in another publication without giving credit – or inappropriate authorship.

To make sure that retractions are handled to the best practice of publications, and also in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines, AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan make use of the following retraction process:

• Any article which requires potential retraction should be brought to the notice of the journal editor.
• Once this is done, the journal editor would follow the guidelines according to the COPE flow chat – this includes the evaluations of the answers given by the author of the article t certain questions.
• The editor's findings are then sent over to the Ethics Advisory Board before any action can be taken. This step is put in place to ensure a consistent approach to these situations in accordance with the best practices of the industry.
• The decision on whether or not the publication is going to be retracted or not is communicated to the author and other relevant bodies such as the Author's institution if necessary.
• When all this is concluded, a retraction statement is posted online and then published in the next available issue of the journal – we are going to be giving detailed information on this step as we move on.

Note: if the author retains copyright for an article, this does not qualify them for the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the public scientific record is important, and COPE's Retraction Guidelines still apply in such cases.

Article Withdrawal

It is not in the jurisdiction of an author to withdraw a submitted manuscript. This is because referees, editors, and publishers have spent a lot of time editing and processing the submitted manuscript leaving the sudden retraction a waste of valuable resources. Before an author submits a manuscript, through our OJS, the author is required to provide the following checklist:

• If the author requests the removal or withdrawal of his/her manuscript when it is still in the peer-reviewing process, the authors would be banned to submit their manuscript to AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan one year after the withdrawal date.
• If the author wants to withdraw the article after being accepted for publication, the authors would be banned to submit their manuscript to AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan two years after the withdrawal date.
• If the article has been published as “Article in Press” – articles which have been accepted for publication although not formally coming without the complete package – that has errors, or has violated the Journal publishing ethics guideline as viewed by editors, or has been discovered to be a duplicate to another published article, or maybe it has been Withdrawn from the AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan website. The authors would be banned to submit their manuscript to AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan three years after the withdrawal date. The term "Withdrawn" means that the article's content has been replaced with a PDF of HTML page stating that the article has been withdrawn.
• If the author refuses to pay the penalty at any point, the author, alongside any affiliation linked to him/her, would be blacklisted for publication for three years.
• If there is a request to withdraw a manuscript by the author, an official letter signed by the corresponding agency leader and the author must be sent to the Principal Editor.

Article Correction

Issuing a correction is considered by AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan if the following happens:

• A small section of a reliable publication reports flawed data, which misleads due to an honest error.
• The Contributor list or Author is incorrect (e.g., a deserving author has been omitted, and likewise, a person who is not worthy of authorship criteria has been included.

Corrections to peer-reviewed content fall into one of these three categories:

• Publisher correction (erratum): this helps to notify readers of a major error made by a publishing staff that negatively impacts a publication record or the scientific veracity of the article, or the reputation of the Journal or authors.
• Author correction (corrigendum): this also helps to notify a reader of an error made by an author, which negatively impacts the scientific integrity of a publication record or the reputation of the author of the journal.
• Addendum: this is where there is an addition to the article by the author to explain inconsistencies and expand the existing work or explain or update the information in the main work.

Deciding whether a correction should be issued is made by the editor of a journal, and this sometimes comes with advice from Reviewers or Editorial Board Members. Handling Editors would contact the Authors of the concerned paper with a clarification request, but the final decision on a correction is required, and if so, which type rests on the editors.

Article Removal

There might be a need to remove a published article from an online platform in a limited number of cases. This would only occur if an article is defamatory or infringes the legal rights of others, or we have good reason to believe that the publication would cause certain court orders. In such situations, while the metadata of the article will be retained, the text would be will be replaced with another screen, which points out that the article has been removed to prevent any legal complications.

Article Replacement

At a point, an author of an original paper may wish to remove or retract the flawed original and replace it with another corrected version. Under these circumstances, the retraction procedure would be followed, with the difference stating that the article retraction notice would contain a link to the – corrected – re-published article alongside the history of the document.

Generative AI Policy

AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan

AGRIDES: Jurnal Agribisnis Perdesaan welcomes responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) and large language models (LLMs) in academic writing and research. This policy defines how authors, reviewers, and editors may apply these tools in the publication process.

1. Allowable Use of Gen-AI for Authors

Authors may use Gen-AI tools for limited academic assistance such as:

• Checking grammar, editing clarity, or rephrasing academic language.
• Supporting idea generation, outlining, or improving readability.
• Supporting data analysis, coding, and bibliometric or qualitative processing tools when appropriate and reported transparently.

Gen-AI may not replace critical intellectual contributions. The core scientific reasoning, originality, methodology, data interpretation, and final conclusions remain the responsibility of the authors.

2. Prohibited Use

Authors may not:

• List Gen-AI as an author.
• Use Gen-AI to generate fabricated data, references, citations, or results.
• Submit AI-generated text or figures without human intellectual contribution.
• Use Gen-AI to bypass plagiarism detection or disguise copied content.

Any violation may result in rejection or retraction.

3. Disclosure and Acknowledgment

If Gen-AI tools are used during manuscript preparation, authors must provide a short statement in the Acknowledgment section that includes:

• The specific tool used and version if available.
• The purpose of use.

Example:

“The authors used ChatGPT for language editing and grammar checking. All intellectual content, analysis, and interpretation were produced by the authors.”

No disclosure is needed for automated proofreading tools embedded in word processors.

4. Authorship and Accountability

Authorship credit requires human academic contribution. Gen-AI tools cannot meet accountability standards for:

• Originality and academic integrity
• Research design and analysis
• Ethical responsibility
• Publication copyright and licensing

Authors remain fully responsible for accuracy and ethical validity of all content derived from Gen-AI tools.

5. Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors may use Gen-AI for:

• Language refinement of comments
• Checking readability of feedback
• Supporting task organization

They may not use Gen-AI to:

• Input confidential manuscripts or review data
• Generate review comments or evaluations without human judgment

Confidentiality rules remain fully binding.

6. Plagiarism and Ethical Checks

All submissions involving Gen-AI remain subject to standard ethical procedures, including:

• Similarity checks
• Data verification
• Copyright checks
• Research integrity review

Undisclosed or unethical use of Gen-AI may be treated as publication misconduct.

7. Updates to Policy

This policy will be reviewed periodically by IJELE editor in response to new technological, ethical, and academic developments.