Peer Review Process. Advanced copies of an author's work are sent to specialists in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers") via e-mail or a Web-based manuscript processing system by the Editorial Board. For each article, there are two or three referees. Two are research professionals, and one is a research and statistics expert who will look over the technical aspects of the research. These referees provide the board with an appraisal of the work, highlighting any flaws or faults and offering suggestions for improvement. The board then considers the referees' remarks and writes their impressions of the document before returning the decision to the author with the referees' comments.

Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection. A manuscript is accepted if it is (1) endorsed for publication by two or three referees, (2) the reviewers' instructions are substantially followed, (3) the manuscript passed the plagiarism detection test with at least 90 percent originality, and (4) the manuscript received a score of 90 percent for Grammarly software; otherwise, the manuscript is rejected. The referees’ evaluations include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, chosen from options provided by the journal. Most recommendations are along the following lines:

• Unconditional acceptance
• Acceptance with revision based on the referee’s recommendations
• Rejection with an invitation to resubmit after major adjustments based on the advice of the referees and editorial board
• Complete rejection

In situations where referees disagree substantially about the quality of work, several strategies can be employed to reach a decision. When the editor receives both extremely favorable and extremely unfavorable feedback on the same manuscript, the board will request one or more extra reviews to break the tie. In the event of a tie, the board may invite writers to respond to a referee's criticisms and allow a strong response to break the tie. The board may request a response from the referee who made the original critique if the editor does not feel secure in judging the persuasiveness of a rebuttal. In rare instances, the board will convey communications back and forth between an author and a referee, allowing them to debate on a point. However, even in such a case, the board does not permit referees to confer with one another. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach a consensus or to convince anyone to change their opinions.

Comments

The Philippine Journal of Agricultural Economics Research welcomes the submission of comments on previous articles. Comments on previously published articles will usually be assessed by two reviewers: an author of the original article (to aid the editor in determining whether the provided remark accurately represents the accuracy of the preceding article) and an independent reviewer. If a comment is accepted for publication, the author will be allowed to respond. All other editorial requirements, as enumerated above, apply to proposed comments—technology-based Quality Assurance, English Writing, and Readability. Readability tests are designed to indicate comprehension difficulty when reading a passage of contemporary academic English. To guide teachers and researchers in selecting articles that suit the comprehension level of users, contributors are advised to use the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, particularly the Flesch Reading Ease test. The interpretation of the score is as follows:

Score Notes
90.0 – 100.00 Easily understandable by an average 11-year-old student
60.0 – 70.0 Easily understandable by 13 to 15-year-old students
0.0 – 30.0 Best understood by university graduates

Gunning Fog Index. Developed by Robert Gunning, an American Businessman, in 1952, the Gunning Fog Index measures the readability of English writing. The index estimates the years of formal education required to understand the text on a first reading. A fog index of 12 requires a reading level equivalent to that of a US high school senior (approximately 18 years old) or a third-year college/university student in the Philippines.

Plagiarism Detection. Contributors are advised to use software for plagiarism detection to increase the manuscript’s chances of acceptance. The editorial office uses licensed software to screen research articles for plagiarism. The standard set is 95 percent original to pass the plagiarism detection test—specifically, the appropriateness of the Citation Format. Contributors are advised to use the citation format prescribed by the Harvard System.

Word Count, Spelling, and Grammar Checks. Contributors are encouraged to perform a word count for the abstract (200) and the full text (about 4000 to 6000). Spelling and grammar checks should be performed before submission. The standard set is 90 percent to pass the Grammarly Software.

Final Evaluation: Following favorable opinions from referees, the editorial board conducts the final evaluation. They will be given an endorsement form, along with their comments and suggestions, to be applied to each manuscript. The articles accepted for publication by the editorial are placed in an issue sequence.

Time of Peer Review Process: The journal aims to complete the peer review process within 15 weeks (effective from 2022). This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.