Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction and Purpose

Peer review plays a crucial role in scholarly publishing by guaranteeing the quality, validity, and integrity of research in the Multidisciplinary Research and Extension Journal of Central Bicol State University of Agriculture (MREJ-CBSUA). This policy provides clear guidelines for conducting peer reviews, outlines the roles and responsibilities of all involved, and promotes the highest standards of academic honesty and ethical behavior.

The purpose of the peer review process is to:

• Ensure that submitted research maintains scientific rigor and methodology.
• Evaluate the uniqueness and significance of the research contributions.
• Offer valuable feedback to authors to enhance their manuscripts.
• Uphold the journal's credibility and reputation.
• Maintain high ethical standards in research publication.

2. Peer Review Model

MREJ-CBSUA uses a double-blind peer review model to promote objectivity and reduce potential bias during evaluation.

2.1 Double-Blind Review Characteristics

• Reviewers are kept unaware of the authors' identities.
• Author identities are kept anonymous from reviewers.
• Manuscripts have all identifying information removed during the review process.
• Reviewers should not disclose their identity in any comments or uploaded files.

2.2 Scope of Review

All original research articles, review articles, and technical papers are subjected to a comprehensive peer review.

3. Editorial Procedure

3.1 Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

Upon manuscript submission, the following process is followed:

3.2 Reviewer Selection and Invitation

The assigned editor selects and invites at least two qualified peer reviewers based on subject matter expertise, publication record, current workload availability, and absence of conflicts of interest.

4. Reviewer Eligibility and Qualifications

4.1 Minimum Requirements

• Possess a doctoral degree (such as a Ph.D. or an equivalent qualification) in a relevant field.
• Maintain an active publication record in peer-reviewed journals.
• Maintain current active research involvement in the manuscript's subject area.
• Hold an official academic or research affiliation.
• Declare that there are no conflicts of interest with the authors or research.

4.2 Disqualifying Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline invitations if they:

• Are affiliated with the same institution as any author.
• Have collaborated with any author within the past three (3) years.
• Have a close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy with any author.
• Stand to gain or lose financially from the manuscript's publication.
• Have any other conflicts (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, or commercial) that compromise objectivity.

4.3 Previous Review Consideration

If a reviewer has previously evaluated the same manuscript for a different journal, this does not create a conflict of interest. Reviewers should notify the editorial office and may provide comments on improvements made. However, if such a situation occurs, our journal must inform the other journal and will likely stop publication with us to prevent conflicts and potential plagiarism, protecting the integrity of both journals.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities and Guidelines

5.1 Confidentiality

• Handle all manuscript materials with strict confidentiality.
• Refrain from discussing the manuscript with colleagues or contacting authors directly.
• Avoid using any information from the manuscript in their own work before publication.
• Destroy/delete manuscript copies once the review is finished.
• Ensure uploaded review files are free of personal identifiers.

5.2 Timely Response

• Reply to invitations promptly within 7 days.
• Request deadline extensions as early as possible if required.
• Recommend alternative reviewers when declining an invitation.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe (usually 14 days).

5.3 Review Standards and Content

First Read-Through: Evaluate research question significance/uniqueness, argument clarity, evidence-supported conclusions, methodological flaws, and make initial decision.

Detailed Review Points:

5.4 Identifying Research Misconduct

Reviewers must notify the editorial office immediately upon suspicion of: plagiarism/self-plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, undisclosed image manipulation, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, human/animal ethics violations, undisclosed conflicts, or authorship concerns.

5.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

6. Review Report Structure

6.1 Required Components

• Major Issues: Methodological flaws, conceptual mistakes, credibility concerns, ethical breaches, unacknowledged prior publications.
• Minor Issues: Unclear sections, factual/numerical inaccuracies, supplementary reference suggestions, figure/table formatting.
• Specific Comments: Line-numbered specific points, prioritizing scientific content over small formatting errors.

6.2 Overall Recommendation

6.3 Confidential Comments to Editors

Reviewers can provide confidential feedback on suspected plagiarism, misconduct, ethical concerns, or recommendation rationale. These comments must be written professionally as they may be shared under appropriate circumstances.

7. Review Conduct and Ethics

7.1 Tone and Constructiveness

• Maintain a neutral, professional, respectful tone concentrating on the research itself.
• Refrain from derogatory, hostile, or insulting language.
• Remain objective and evidence-based in all evaluations.

7.2 Prohibited Practices

• Avoid excessive self-citation demands or artificial citation boosting.
• Do not delay publication to gain competitive advantage or use manuscript information for personal benefit.
• Do not contact authors directly or allow decisions to be affected by author nationality, gender, or affiliation.

7.3 Delegation of Review

Involving a colleague requires prior approval from the editorial office, ensuring the colleague meets eligibility criteria, staying accountable for review quality, and recognizing input.

8. Editorial Decision-Making

8.1 Review Compilation and Assessment

The handling editor evaluates completeness, quality, summarizes suggestions, verifies addressed concerns, and recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief.

8.2 Final Decision Authority

The Editor-in-Chief makes final accept/reject decisions based on reviewer reports, editor assessments, scope standards, and ethical considerations.

8.3 Decision Categories and Timelines

• Accept: Manuscript ready for production.
• Minor Revision: Authors given 5 days to respond; reviewed solely by handling editor.
• Major Revision: Authors given 10 days to respond; maximum of two rounds permitted.
• Reject: Fundamental flaws or ethical non-compliance. No APC charges for rejected papers.

8.4 Author Response to Revisions

Authors must provide a point-by-point response letter, mark modifications clearly, and explain any unadopted suggestions.

9. Post-Acceptance Procedures

9.1 Quality Checks

Includes final technical validation, peer review process verification, ethical compliance confirmation, and missing document collection.

9.2 Provisional Acceptance Override

If significant problems arise during quality inspections, the editorial office may return the paper to review, request revisions, or override acceptance to reject the manuscript.

10. Appeals and Arbitration

10.1 Author-Initiated Appeals

Appeals must be submitted within 30 days of rejection with factual responses and supporting documents maintaining a constructive tone.

10.2 Appeal Review Process

The editorial office evaluates appeals, consults handling editors, seeks independent expert evaluation if needed, and makes a determination within 60–90 days with updates every 2–4 weeks.

10.3 Appeal Outcomes

Upheld: Manuscript reinstated, new editor/reviewers assigned, or review re-initiated.
Denied: Rejection remains final; resubmission in current form is not permitted.

11. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits

• Acknowledgment: Annual reviewer list (when >50 reviewers contribute), personalized certificates, Editorial Board appointment consideration, institutional recognition.
• Professional Development: Enhanced research understanding, evaluation skill growth, scholarly community networking.
• ORCID Integration: Reviewers are encouraged to link ORCID profiles and record reviewing activities.

12. Special Considerations

12.1 Consensus Conflicts: Reviewers must evaluate if evidence questioning established consensus is compelling and properly cited.

12.2 Interdisciplinary Research: Additional reviewers invited; boundary of expertise explicitly specified.

12.3 Human/Animal Subjects: Confirm ethics approval, international standards, informed consent, privacy, and animal welfare compliance.

13. Journal-Specific Standards & Reporting Guidelines

MREJ-CBSUA follows recognized international reporting guidelines:

• CONSORT Statement (for randomized trials): EQUATOR Consort Guidelines
• PRISMA (for systematic reviews & meta-analyses): PRISMA Statement
• ARRIVE Guidelines (for animal research): ARRIVE Guidelines
• COPE Guidelines (Committee on Publication Ethics): COPE Resources

14. Continuous Improvement

14.1 Reviewer Performance Monitoring: Editorial office oversees review quality, timeliness, tone, and ethics. Low-quality or late reviewers are removed from the database.

14.2 Policy Re-evaluation: Policy is reevaluated annually to adopt publishing best practices and respond to community feedback.

15. Contact, Support & References

Editorial Support: mrej.cbsua@cbsua.edu.ph

Ethics & Misconduct Reporting: Confidential reports can be submitted to mrej.cbsua@cbsua.edu.ph.

References

1. Wiley Author Services, "Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript," Wiley. Link
2. MDPI, "Guidelines for Reviewers," MDPI. Link
3. GSCARR, "Peer Review Policy and Guidelines," GSCARR Online Press. Link
4. Wiley Author Services, "Peer review," Ethics Guidelines. Link
5. Frontiers, "Principles of peer review," Frontiers Guidelines. Link
6. Wiley, "Research Exchange Review: Reviewer Guide," Version 19.0, Dec. 2025.
7. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), "Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers," COPE. Link
8. I. Hames, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.
9. NISO, "Peer Review Terminology Standard," NISO Z39.106-2023, 2023.
10. Publishing Research Consortium, "Peer Review: An Introduction and Guide." Link