1 Peer Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are via an online submission system (http://nytsqb.aiijournal.com/). Articles in Journal of Library and Information Science in Agriculture (JLISA) are thoroughly peer reviewed. Generally, a minimum of 3 peer reviewers are chosen for the double-blind peer review process. JLISA’s review process is as follows:

·  The online submission system will automatically send an e-mail to authors if successful submission of a manuscript.

·  The review process currently averages at 60 days from submission to acceptance. All submissions to JLISA can be tracked via the online submission system.

·  The corresponding author will receive an email from JLISA that asks to revise the manuscript. Authors should be required to submit the revised version and a description document online before the deadline. The description document should address each peer review’s comments and specify what corresponding changes authors have made in the revised version of their paper.

·  Some of the revised version should be double-reviewed.

·  As per JLISA policy, no peer review charge to publish your articles in JLISA. Publication fee in JLISA should be full compliance with China’s state policies, and it is payable once the article has been accepted for publishing (150 yuan / 1000 words, calculated according to printed pages). Meanwhile authors will get paid for the publication.

2    Peer Review Standards

Submitted Manuscripts should comply with JLISA’s Policies and Ethical Guidelines.

JLISA has published the Article Guidelines for Writing and Reviewing Different Article Types.

3    Roles of Peer Reviewers 

·  Reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exits. Editors should ask that:

·  Reviewers decline invitations where circumstances might prevent them writing an unbiased review. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include when they have collaborated with the authors recently, when they are based in the same institution as the authors, when they are in direct competition with the authors, when they have personal conflict or close personal relationship or association with the authors, or when they have a financial interest in the manuscript.

·  Reviewers should destroy submitted manuscripts and all related materials after they have reviewed them.

·  Reviewers should agree only to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.

·  Reviewers should not delegate peer review without the permission of the editorial offices.

·  Reviewers should not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.

·  Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s own paper, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.

 · Reviewers should not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.

Remark: 

- Peer Review is defined as the process of contributions receiving comments from relevant experts in the field.