Peer Review Process

Every manuscript submitted to ALFI first undergoes an administrative check by the Editorial Office. At this stage, the submission is examined for completeness, adherence to the journal's Author Guidelines, manuscript structure, required declarations, authorship information, research-ethics documentation where applicable, references, figures and tables, supplementary material, and other essential submission requirements.

Manuscripts with incomplete documentation, substantial formatting problems, missing declarations, or other correctable administrative deficiencies may be returned to the corresponding author before formal editorial evaluation begins. Administrative compliance does not imply that a manuscript will proceed to peer review.

After the administrative check, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial scholarly assessment. This screening determines whether the manuscript is sufficiently aligned with ALFI's aims and scope and whether it demonstrates an appropriate level of originality, academic quality, methodological rigor, scholarly relevance, ethical compliance, clarity, and potential contribution to knowledge.

Editors may also examine whether the research question is clearly defined, the methods are appropriate, the literature engagement is adequate, the conclusions are supported by the evidence, and the manuscript provides sufficient scholarly value beyond a narrowly descriptive or routine report.

Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet minimum scholarly standards, contain serious ethical concerns, demonstrate insufficient originality, or are otherwise unsuitable for external review may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. This procedure is referred to as editorial rejection or desk rejection.

Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software and other appropriate editorial integrity checks before external peer review. Identified overlap is assessed qualitatively according to its source, extent, location, attribution, and context. A numerical similarity score is not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism or publication misconduct.

Where potential plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated material, inappropriate authorship, undeclared competing interests, unethical research, or another integrity concern is identified, the manuscript may be held for further investigation, returned for clarification, or rejected in accordance with ALFI's Publication Ethics and Similarity & Plagiarism Policy.

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject, methodology, disciplinary context, or technical requirements of the submission. Each article proceeding to external peer review must normally receive evaluations from at least two independent reviewers.

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant scholarly experience, independence, availability, previous review quality where known, and absence of conflicts of interest. The journal seeks to avoid reviewers whose personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or other relationships could reasonably compromise the independence of the evaluation.

Authors may be permitted to suggest potential reviewers or identify individuals with whom a relevant conflict exists; however, such suggestions are advisory only. The Editorial Team retains exclusive responsibility for reviewer selection and is under no obligation to invite reviewers proposed by authors.

A reviewer must be capable of evaluating the manuscript independently and objectively. Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest and should decline the invitation whenever impartial assessment cannot reasonably be assured. Reviewer expertise and independence take priority over convenience, personal relationships, or institutional considerations.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts critically, objectively, constructively, and confidentially. The purpose of peer review is to assist editors in assessing the reliability and scholarly contribution of a submission and to provide authors with substantive feedback that may improve the quality of their work.

Reviewers should assess the relevance and originality of the research question, engagement with appropriate literature, methodological quality, validity of analyses, presentation and interpretation of results, consistency between evidence and conclusions, research-ethics considerations, transparency of reporting, quality of tables and figures, appropriateness of citations, and overall contribution to the fields covered by ALFI.

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share manuscripts, disclose unpublished findings, reproduce submitted material, contact authors directly regarding the review, or use information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, financial, commercial, competitive, or other advantage.

Reviewers who identify a possible ethical or integrity concern should communicate it confidentially to the responsible editor and provide sufficient information to support further editorial assessment. Reviewers should not independently investigate authors or publicly disclose allegations relating to a manuscript under review.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, supplementary files, author information, review reports, or other confidential editorial material to public generative artificial intelligence systems or other external automated services where confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, or secure processing cannot be assured.

Peer-review reports and editorial assessments must reflect the reviewer's or editor's own scholarly judgment. Generative AI must not replace independent expert evaluation or be used to generate substantive peer-review decisions. Any permitted automated assistance must remain subject to human oversight and the journal's applicable confidentiality and Generative AI policies.

Reviewer recommendations inform but do not mechanically determine the editorial decision. The responsible editor evaluates the substance, quality, consistency, and relevance of the review reports together with the manuscript and the complete editorial record.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, a review lacks sufficient justification, additional expertise is required, or the editor determines that the existing reports do not provide an adequate basis for decision-making, the manuscript may be sent to an additional independent reviewer.

Authors invited to revise a manuscript are expected to consider all editorial and reviewer comments carefully. A revised submission should normally be accompanied by a detailed response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed and clearly identifying any recommendation that has not been followed together with an academically reasoned explanation.

An invitation to revise does not constitute acceptance. Revised manuscripts remain subject to editorial evaluation and, where necessary, additional peer review. The journal may request more than one round of revision when substantive scholarly concerns remain unresolved.

Major revisions will normally receive further evaluation and may be returned to one or more original reviewers to determine whether substantive concerns have been adequately addressed. Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the responsible editor when additional external review is not necessary. The editor may seek further independent review at any stage when additional expertise or verification is required.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The editor considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical and integrity information, and any additional expert advice obtained during the editorial process.

Reviewer recommendations do not constitute a vote and acceptance is not determined solely by the number of positive recommendations. The responsible editor retains accountability for ensuring that the final decision is academically justified, ethically appropriate, and consistent with ALFI's editorial standards.

Submission to ALFI, successful completion of administrative screening, invitation to revise, completion of peer review, or payment of any external service unrelated to the journal does not guarantee publication. ALFI does not charge authors for publication and does not permit payment, sponsorship, personal relationships, or institutional influence to determine manuscript acceptance.

Editors and Editorial Board members may submit scholarly manuscripts to ALFI, but their editorial position must not provide preferential treatment. An editor or board member who is an author or otherwise has a relevant competing interest must be completely excluded from reviewer selection, access to confidential reviewer identities where avoidable, editorial assessment, deliberation, and the publication decision for that manuscript.

Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest and must undergo the same minimum external peer-review requirements applied to other submissions. The independence of the process must be preserved throughout the editorial workflow.

Articles submitted to special issues, thematic collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same standards of editorial screening, independent external peer review, research integrity, conflicts-of-interest management, and publication ethics as articles submitted to regular issues.

Guest Editors must not make decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the scholarly integrity and editorial standards of all content published by ALFI, including special issues and guest-edited content.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant financial, personal, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, supervisory, or other competing interests that could reasonably influence or appear to influence their judgment. When an appropriate level of independence cannot be maintained, the individual concerned must not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process for the manuscript.

ALFI may monitor reviewer performance according to the quality, substance, professionalism, independence, usefulness, and timeliness of previous reviews. Reviewers who repeatedly provide inadequate, inappropriate, excessively delayed, unethical, discriminatory, or otherwise unsuitable assessments may no longer be invited to review for the journal.

Published research articles should display relevant editorial-history dates, including the date of submission or receipt, acceptance, and publication where technically supported. These dates form part of ALFI's commitment to transparency concerning the editorial and publication history of scholarly content.

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a material factual error, significant misunderstanding, conflict of interest, or substantial procedural problem affected an editorial decision. An appeal must address the scholarly or procedural basis of the decision and should be supported by relevant evidence rather than disagreement with the outcome alone.

Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Industry (ALFI) is affiliated with Yayasan Kalidaka Cendikia Nusantara and formally published by WISE Pendidikan Indonesia. Institutional and publishing support does not override the independence of the journal's peer-review process or the scholarly authority of the responsible editors.

This Peer Review Process should be read together with ALFI's Publication Ethics, Similarity & Plagiarism Policy, Corrections & Retractions Policy, Article Processing Charge Policy, Aims & Scope, Author Guidelines, and other applicable editorial policies. ALFI may revise its peer-review procedures when necessary to reflect developments in recognized standards of research integrity, editorial quality, and responsible scholarly publishing.