Peer Review Process

A research article's quality is guaranteed by the rigorous standards of the peer review process. There is a strict peer review process at the Biochar and Compost Technology Journal. Before each manuscript is published, it is subjected to a rigorous round of peer review.

Double Blind Peer Review:

Article Revesion is the most crucial part of publication. It helps authors and editors to ensure the high quality of published works. The journal uses double-blind peer review. The reviewers' names are hidden (s) when Submitting the review reports to authors. The Biochar and Compost Technology Journal prefers the double-blind peer system because it reduces author and reviewer prejudice.

The Peer Review Process:

The editorial office, an outside review board and finally the journal's editors themselves comprise the journal's three-tiered review processes. When an article is submitted, the editors first check to see if it satisfies the journal's basic criteria, and only then do they send it out to outside reviewers. All of the following are checked off on the checklist while reviewing the manuscript at this stage:

1-  Possible plagiarism:

The similarity index between the submitted manuscript and previously published works is assessed. Thus, the journal employs the use of the iThenticate plagiarism detection algorithm. Manuscripts that has a high similarity index Exceeding 25% are rejected at this stage.

2-  Scope:

After a manuscript passes a similarity check, its content is examined to make sure it fits the scope of the journal. If the paper doesn't meet the journal's scope, the manuscript will be rejected during this stage.

3-  Recent references:

Biochar and Compost Technology Journal strongly suggests to authors that they reference more recent papers. Articles that have been published within the past five years should preferably make up a sizeable portion of the total number of works that are cited in the paper.

4-  English Language:

Articles are published only in English Language with out translation of abstract section. The journal's Instructions for Authors are followed to check the manuscript's structure, organization, correctness, and clarity. The editorial office fixes minor grammatical issues without changing the manuscript. The manuscript is returned to the author if the language is too difficult to be understand. Authors must revise and resubmit manuscripts that fail this first evaluation. This initial evaluation allows the author(s) to improve the text early on. This initial paper evaluation takes two weeks.

The second stage begins when a manuscript passes editorial office review. The second stage uses a double-blind review. Our database, journal editorial board, or other sources selects two external reviewers. These paper reviewers are experts in the studied subject area.

Reviewers are required to analyze papers and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve the quality of their work. The manuscript is also evaluated based on its originality, contribution to the area, technical excellence, clarity of presentation and research depth. Lastly, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations regarding the manuscript:

  • Requires minor revision
  • Requires major revision
  • Not suitable for further processing. In this case, the reviewer provides specific reason(s) why the manuscript not be further processed.

Despite a Favourable review, a paper may be rejected if another reviewer raises concerns that could undermine the study and results. The editorial office evaluates reviewer comments after receiving them. If one of the reviewers disagree on a paper, and another one Fundamental recommend acceptance with specific Revision. The manuscript is re-sent to a third reviewer for final Decision selection. The author receives all reviewers' comments, including third reviewers' comments(s). Reviewers' identities are hidden from the author (s). Reviewer availability determines the second stage of manuscript review time. It normally takes one to four weeks.

Author(s) are  modifying the manuscript based on reviewers' comments. The paper enters the third and final review stage after being revised. The journal editor receives the original, updated, and response to reviewers comments. The editor decides the final Decision as follows:

  • Acceptance
  • Acceptance with minor Revision
  • Acceptance with major Revision
  • Rejected

Publication:

Accepted manuscript will be sent to the production office after receiving the revised manuscript and all coments and suggestions of the editorial board and reviewes are addressed. Corresponding authors will receive an e-mail with a link to our online proofing system, allowing annotation and correction of proofs online.