Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The main focus of this journal includes soil characteristics, management of swamp and peat lands, soil and water conservation, soil fertility, and sustainable agriculture in suboptimal land areas.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The purpose of the peer review process is to ensure that only high-quality manuscripts that align with the journal’s scope are published. Every manuscript submitted undergoes a structured review process as outlined below.

Administrative Screening
All submissions are first examined by the Journal Administrator to confirm compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines as stated on the author information page. This includes checking aspects such as manuscript length, quality of English, formatting of figures, and referencing style. Submissions that fail to meet these requirements may be rejected at this stage, and authors will be asked to revise and resubmit after addressing the identified issues.

Preliminary Editorial Assessment
The Chief Editor evaluates each manuscript at the initial stage. A paper may be rejected if it lacks originality, contains major scientific weaknesses, demonstrates poor language quality, or falls outside the journal’s aims and scope. Manuscripts that satisfy the basic criteria are either handled directly by the Chief Editor or assigned to an Associate Editor to oversee the peer review process. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage are typically notified within one month of submission.

Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal uses a double-blind review system, meaning that reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities, both during and after the review process.

Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise to ensure alignment with the manuscript’s subject matter, using information available in the journal’s reviewer database.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess whether the manuscript:

  • Demonstrates originality in ideas, methods, or data
  • Uses sound and appropriate methodology
  • Presents results clearly and supports its conclusions
  • Adequately cites relevant prior research
  • Adheres to ethical standards, particularly regarding plagiarism
  • Contributes meaningfully to the advancement of the field

Although language editing is not a primary responsibility of reviewers, they may suggest improvements in clarity and style or recommend proofreading. In the final stage, the handling Editor reviews the manuscript for linguistic and stylistic accuracy and may implement or suggest revisions. In some cases, authors may be required to revise the manuscript extensively for language and style.

Review Timeline
The duration of the review process depends on reviewer responsiveness. Typically, the first review round takes about six weeks, with a maximum of three months. If reviewer opinions conflict or delays occur, an additional expert may be consulted. In rare situations where it is difficult to secure a second reviewer, the handling Editor may make a decision based on a single comprehensive review. Authors receive the Editor’s decision along with reviewer comments, often including the reviewers’ original remarks. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the original reviewers, who may request further revisions or recommend rejection if the changes are insufficient.

Final Decision
Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests with the Chief Editor.

 

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.