Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus

ARCC Journals is a leading publisher of academic and research journals in various fields of agriculture, veterinary, dairy, food science, technology, engineering, and social sciences. The publisher aims to promote excellence in research and innovation by providing a platform for researchers to share their work with the global scientific community.

ARCC Journals publishes original research articles, review articles, case studies, and short communications. The publisher follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure that only high-quality research is published in its journals.

Scientific journal publishing is a complicated and time-consuming process. It brings the most authentic and useful knowledge of scholars to the world. Any type of carelessness can make the importance of research papers null and void.

At Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) double-blind peer-review process has been followed for the last 50 years to maintain the quality and standards of the journals. 

Therefore, ARCC Journals give importance to the role of peer review as it is the only method of ensuring that the article contains the desired and useful information in it.

ARCC Journals is having Esteemed Reviewer’s panel of more than 10000 senior scale professionals from all around the globe and their profiles are given on

The main objective of our Editors and Reviewers is to follow the peer-review process to maintain the standards of the journals and helps the author to improve the quality of the research. 

The peer-review process disapproves some of the ill practices in the domain of scientific journal publishing. Any type of misconduct betrays the purpose of journal publishing.

The ARCC journals are very much professional about publishing the most knowledge-rich and original journals and emphasize the most comprehensive peer review.

The entire editorial process for article review is performed using ARCC online manuscript tracking system. We continuously innovate to provide cutting-edge tools and services for an efficient peer review.

The peer review process can take several weeks or months, depending on the complexity of the research and the availability of the peer reviewers. Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, it is copyedited, typeset, and proofread before being published in the journal.

The peer review process has several benefits. Firstly, it ensures that research published in reputable journals is of high quality and free from errors or biases. Secondly, it helps to maintain the integrity of the scientific process by ensuring that research is rigorously evaluated by independent experts in the field. Finally, it helps to advance knowledge in the field by providing a platform for the dissemination of new and innovative research findings.

The peer review process typically starts with the submission of a manuscript to a journal by the author(s). The manuscript is then assigned to an editor who oversees the review process. The editor first reviews the manuscript to ensure that it meets the journal's requirements and standards. If the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, it is then sent to two or more independent experts in the field for peer review.

The peer review process of ARCC Journals is guided by several key principles, including:

  1. Quality: The peer review process is designed to ensure that only high-quality research is published in the journal. The process is rigorous and transparent, and the reviewers provide constructive feedback to help the author improve the manuscript.

  2. Relevance: The published research must be relevant to the journal's readership and make a significant contribution to the field of study. The peer review process evaluates the manuscript's relevance and ensures that it adds value to the scientific community.

  3. Integrity: The peer review process ensures that the published research adheres to ethical standards and does not contain any plagiarism or fraudulent data. The process also ensures that the author's intellectual property rights are protected.

  4. Transparency: The peer review process is transparent, and the author, reviewers, and editorial team have clear roles and responsibilities. The process also provides feedback to the author, which is essential for improving the manuscript.

  5. Peer reviewer confidentiality: ARCC Journals ensure that the confidentiality of peer reviewers is maintained and that the identities of reviewers are not revealed to authors or others without the reviewer's consent.

The peer review process is a critical aspect of publishing research articles in reputable journals. This process ensures that the research published in these journals is of high quality, accurate, and free from errors or biases. The peer review process is conducted by experts in the field who have the necessary expertise to assess the scientific merit of the article.

As peer review is the process of reviewing the author’s work and studies to the inspection of other experts, it is aimed at serving two primary purposes.

Firstly, it filters the high-quality research for its publication in reputed journals by determining the validity, importance, and authenticity of the study.

Second, it enhances the quality of the manuscripts that are appropriate for publication. Peer reviewers give suggestions to the authors on how to make manuscripts better, and also find and correct any errors before forwarding them for publication.

ARCC Journals uses the Double-Blind type of Peer Review for the last 5 decades in which the reviewers don’t know the names of the authors and the authors don’t know who reviewed the manuscript.

The peer review process of ARCC Journals follows a structured and rigorous approach that involves several stages. The process starts with the submission of a manuscript by the author and ends with the publication of the manuscript in the journal. The different stages of the peer review process are:

Manuscript Submission: The first step in the peer review process is the submission of a manuscript by the author through the online submission system of the ARCC Journals. The author must ensure that the manuscript complies with the submission guidelines of the journal.

Initial Screening: Once the manuscript is submitted, the journal's editorial team conducts an initial screening to check if the manuscript meets the journal's scope and quality standards. The manuscript is also checked for plagiarism and ethical issues. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards are rejected at this stage.

Assignment to Reviewers: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to two or more qualified reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research experience, and publication record. The reviewers are blinded to the author's identity to ensure that the review process is unbiased.

Reviewing: The reviewers read the manuscript carefully and provide their feedback on the research methods, results, and conclusions. They also evaluate the manuscript for its originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's readership. The reviewers provide their feedback in a standardized review form provided by the journal. They also have the option to provide additional comments to the author and the editor.

Revised Article: The author submits the revised manuscript with all the corrections and suggestions made by the reviewer. The authors may also be asked to provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments so that Editor can cross-check all the revisions done by the author as per the reviewers’ comments. The author needs to follow the format of the journal to submit the revised manuscript. 

Editorial Process: After receiving the revised manuscript, the editorial team makes a decision based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The possible decisions include acceptance, rejection, or re-revision and resubmission. If further revisions are required, the authors are given a specific timeline to make the revisions and resubmit the manuscript. 

Re-review: Once the authors have made the revisions, the manuscript is reviewed again by the original reviewers, who provide feedback on the revised manuscript. The editorial team makes the final decision based on the revised manuscript and the reviewers' comments. In some cases, the editorial team may seek the opinion of additional reviewers.

Final Decision: Once the authors have made the revisions, the manuscript is reviewed again by the original reviewers, who provide feedback on the revised manuscript. The editorial team makes the final decision based on the revised manuscript and the reviewers' comments.

Production (Copyediting and Typesetting): Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, it is copyedited and typeset to ensure that it meets the journal's formatting requirements. The author is given a chance to review the copyedited manuscript and make any final corrections.

Publication: The final version of the manuscript is then published online and made available to the journal's readership.

All the above set of steps are followed by ARCC Journals in the complete process of journal peer-reviewing is discussed below in details:

The first step is the submission of research papers. Hundreds of research papers are submitted to ARCC journals regularly. An author submits his manuscripts for publishing through the online submission portal on the ARCC website

There is another way by which the author can submit his papers i.e. the good old E-Mail. The guidelines for the author may be found at:

After the completion of the submission process, the manuscripts are sent to the editor for a first opinion.

If Editor finds that the submitted papers don’t fulfill the process of the required subject, he holds the complete right of abandoning the further process of reviewing. The author informed accordingly if the article got rejected at this point after the editor’s first assessment.

The editor may notify the author of minor or major changes if found for further consideration. The author then needs to resubmit the article again with all the required changes for re-screening.

Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript and the manuscript passes the editor’s screening, it is forwarded to external reviewers for further review. The Editorial Board and Reviewer Panel is clearly displayed on each journal’s homepage.

Become a Reviewer/Editor

Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publication process. ARCC relies on the peer review process to maintain the quality of articles and journals.

→ Register Now

At ARCC double-blind peer-review process has been followed for the last 50 years. After the initial green signal by the editor, the papers are sent to suitable reviewers. The article may be sent to more than 1 or 2 reviewers. Average time from submission to a final decision: 61 days

In the Double-blind peer review, the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept secret. This mainly stops the reviewer from forming any partiality as the reviewer doesn’t know who wrote the article.

To aid this the authors need to make sure that their manuscripts are created in a way that doesn’t reveal their identity at any cost.

But as no process is entirely useful or harmful, the Double-Blind Peer Review also comes with its set of advantages and disadvantages. 

Advantages of Double-Blind Peer Review System

  • More than 70% of academics all over the world have confidence in a double-blind review system.
  • Double-Blind Peer Review System gives pure and unbiased results.
  • Empowers female authors. 


Disadvantages of the Double-Blind Peer Review System

  • Sometimes ruins the research of the paper.

The reviewers then monitor the manuscripts and extra papers (supporting documents) from the editor and determine whether they fulfill the standards of scientific guidelines or not. In the Double-blind peer review, the identity of both the author and reviewer is kept secret. This mainly stops the reviewer from forming any partiality as the reviewer doesn’t know who wrote the article. The editor provides a questionnaire (comments format) with the attachment of the article without author names and addresses.

We provide login access to the Reviewer for submitting the comments through our portal or comments with the questionnaire sheet can also submit through email.

The following types of questions were asked of the reviewer, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

Reviewer is requested to provide comments and mark the corrections and changes required at each section of the manuscript in detail under the following heads:

  • General comment: The reviewer summarizes the outcome of the review.

  • Introduction: Reviewer requested to go through the introduction part carefully to check whether are abstract, introduction, and conclusion appropriate.

  • Methodology: The reviewer checks the validity of the approach, the quality of the data, and the quality of the presentation.

  • Results: The reviewer then goes through the results to find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid, and reliable.

  • Discussion: Reviewers will go through the study design, significance of the study, clarity of language, result presentation, etc.

  • Bibliography/References: Check with the references for previous literature appropriately. Cross-checking of all the references in the List and quoted in the text, and what references should be included or excluded.

  • Language: Reviewer requested to check the language of the article to make it more meaningful.

  • Decision: The reviewer gives the decision and suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.


Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not share data from unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.

Reviewers can also suggest another reviewer’s name to the editor if they find that the article is not related to their field of interest or have any conflict of interest.

Reviewers can be replaced to remove during the ongoing review process if the editor found that the reviewer does not have the relevant expertise or have a conflict of interest in that particular manuscript.

The reviewers will also recommend the publication to the journal editor. Based on the feedback and recommendations, the editor will decide whether the paper will be accepted or not, or sent for revision. The editor will write a decision letter to the authors.

Several times article will be sent to more than 1 or 2 reviewers depending upon the time taken by the first reviewer. In a few circumstances reviewer was unable to send the comments on time and to avoid further delay article may send to more than 1 reviewer. 

It is quite rare for a paper to be accepted as the original draft. In case the manuscripts don’t fulfill the standards of scientific guidelines, suggestions are made to the editor to take the required steps.

If the reviewer has any conflicts of interest, then it should be informed to the Editor before accepting an invitation to review the article. All the information between reviewers and Editors will not be shared with authors.

Sometimes review process takes much longer than usual due to some unavoidable circumstances (delay in the process due to unavoidable error) we request authors to suggest potential reviewers (other than their colleagues from the same institution), who can give fair comments on the article. Editors will consider these requests but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.

Peer reviewer misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in the rejection of the manuscript, further investigation will be done by the editorial committee according to journal policies, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers.

It is our request for the reviewers to respond promptly within the specific period of time with their expert comments. ARCC journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions through and publication, and we believe that it can be achieved through an efficient editorial process that is valuable both to our authors and to the reviewers, and editors as a whole.

The article may be rejected at any stage before complete publication of the article, including during initial screening, the peer review process, revised article, the final decision, and, if issues arrived at late stage e.g. online publication, also post-acceptance, for the following reasons:

  • If the Editor found that there is research misconduct or publication misconduct has taken place.
  • Fabrication of data
  • If the research or findings have previously been published in some other publication without permission or justification.
  • Where there is fraudulent authorship.
  • In case research constitutes plagiarism more than the allowed percentage.
  • If the Editor found evidence of unethical research.
  • The integrity of research may also be compromised by an inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction.
  • If the authors have not adhered to our authorship guidelines.
  • The references are clear and do not reflect the current status of knowledge in the field.

After the reviewers have submitted the expert comments, the editor is responsible for initiating the next stage, the interactive review, to send the comments to the authors. The editor has the authority to add more comments if found some more corrections or errors which were not carried out by the reviewer.

If the editor would like to reject the manuscript during the review phase, they can do so by activating the interactive review phase with major concerns, providing the authors with a detailed statement and a unique opportunity for rebuttal during a defined timeframe.

Why it is important?

Scientific research can be far more meaningful for individuals and the community. And because of this, it goes through a quality control process known as ‘Peer-review’ before its publication.

The Peer review process involves reviewing the author’s work and studies to the inspection of other experts to check their validity and suitability for publication. Simply put, a peer review lets the editor decide whether a work should be published or not.

According to ARCC, Peer Review has the following additional benefits:

Peer review makes the manuscripts more robust as peer reviewers point out the areas in the paper that need more explanation or study.

Peer review also makes the manuscripts much easier to read as the reviewers suggest changes that ease their difficulty.

Lastly, peer reviewers make the manuscripts more useful as peer reviewers keep in mind the importance of your paper to others in your domain.

Once the editor initiates the interactive review phase, authors are notified immediately through system generated email with the attachment of the questionnaire and reviewed article done by the reviewer. Authors are asked to respond and/or submit a revised manuscript within the specific time frame, depending on the level of revisions required.

If there are no responses received from the author after multiple reminder attempts, the editorial office will send a final email to the authors with a 10 days deadline to respond. Following this, the editorial office may delete or withdraw the manuscript from the system completely and the author will be informed accordingly.

The suggestions made by the reviewer are closely observed by the editor. In case there is a requirement from the author to provide the missing documents, he is asked to do so. The editor also assists the author to follow the necessary guidelines for journal publishing.

According to the editors, the article has important information along with some issues and concerns. The authors need to go through and consider the comments of the reviewers carefully as the revision will largely be based on those comments.

The authors also need to respond to each comment point by point indicating the changes, whether or not a revision can be done, or give sufficient information properly.

The authors need to follow the instructions and guidelines on how to submit a revision to the editor.

The editor cross-checks and takes into consideration all the important amendments and revisions carried out by the author as per the comments and directions before making the final decision.

The editor can then send the corrected article again to the reviewer in case the need arises. He can even return the article to the author if it is not worked up according to the research and format.

After the revision is done, the authors submit the revised paper again to the journal. The revision will pass the review through the editor only or by both the reviewers and editors for the next round.

In a few circumstances, a dispute may arise at this stage, then the editor acts as a mediator, working with all involved to resolve the issues and even add new reviewers for further opinions if needed. Still, if the disagreement persists, the specific journal chief editor is then requested to take the initiative and assess the situation, and take a final call as to whether the review should be ended by rejecting the manuscript or continued – potentially, with a new handling editor and reviewers.

The review is complete only once all the reviewer and editor comments have been satisfactorily addressed by the author.

Then the authors may get a final decision. Usually, if the editor and the reviewers think that the revision has addressed their previous issues adequately and the paper has improved post-revision, the paper will move forward to the last step.

The power of approving or rejecting an article completely lies with the editor. If some changes are found in the article, the author can be asked for resubmitting the article.

In case the articles are found fabricated, falsified, or inflated on intention, the resubmission of the article can again be rejected by the editor.

If the paper is accepted, an acceptance letter is issued to the authors. The authors may be required to complete certain formalities as a prerequisite for publication. The manuscript will then be edited and put into final production.

The article processing charge (APC) is payable within 30 days of acceptance and is required before the final publication of the manuscript.


If the editor finds the article well enough for acceptance in its final form, an acceptance letter is issued to the author.

The editor can then either accept the final version of the manuscript or request further changes as necessary, typically within a few days. Acceptance of a manuscript by the editor does not require the approval of the journal’s chief editor.


During this stage, a manuscript may be rejected at any point for the following reasons:

  • If the Editor found evidence of unethical research that prevents further consideration or publication.
  • Errors founds in the methods, applications, or interpretations were identified in the manuscript.
  • If the standards established for the journal are not fulfilled by the manuscript to be considered for publication
  • If the author doesn’t revise the article carefully and is unable to address the concerns raised by the reviewers or editor during the review process

If a manuscript is rejected, no APC or other fee is charged.

The submitted articles are worked on before the production process. World-class services are employed to create the finest writing piece for readership. The content is also arranged with the best typography standards and the tables and figures are arranged properly for printing.

The journal is then made presentable through the international guidelines and, finally the re-prints are sent to the author for final corrections.

As soon as the author finalizes the reprints of the article, it is processed for DOI generation. Once the DOI is generated from crossref, the article is processed for online publication on the website under the menu Online First articles

The articles are published online in a proper manner. The author may download the PDF of the article through provided login details. It is once again the responsibility of the author to check the online content as well as the PDF text before final publication.

After going through the detailed process, the ultimate process of the journal process is begun. All the required approvals from the different sections of the publication house are checked again so that no error at the time of the final publication of the printed journal is detected.

As soon as an article got selected for a particular issue, its final publication process is completed and assigned Volume, Issue, and Page number. ​

Post the final publication, the author is requested to get the final copy of the printed journal. The author may find the complete published article on

The peer review process of ARCC Journals involves several parties, each with their roles and responsibilities. These parties include the author, the reviewers, the editorial team, and the publisher. The roles and responsibilities of each party are as follows:


The author is responsible for preparing and submitting a high-quality manuscript that complies with the journal's submission guidelines. The author must ensure that the research is original, valid, and relevant to the journal's readership. The author is also responsible for responding to the reviewers' comments and making the necessary revisions to the manuscript.


Our expert panel of reviewers is responsible for providing constructive feedback on the manuscript and evaluating its scientific merit. The reviewers must ensure that the research is original, valid, and relevant to the journal's readership. The reviewers must also ensure that the manuscript adheres to ethical standards and does not contain any plagiarism. The reviewers' feedback is crucial in determining the manuscript's acceptance, rejection, or revision.

Editorial Team

ARCC Journal’s editorial team is responsible for managing the peer review process and ensuring that the process is fair, transparent, and efficient. The editorial team is also responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript's acceptance, rejection, or revision. The editorial team must ensure that the review process is unbiased and that all parties involved in the process adhere to ethical standards.


As a publisher, we are responsible for ensuring that the published research meets the highest standards of quality and relevance. ARCC ensures that the peer review process is rigorous and transparent and that the published research is accessible to the scientific community.


The peer review process of ARCC Journals is a structured and rigorous approach that ensures that published research meets the highest standards of quality and relevance. The process involves several stages and parties, including the author, reviewers, editorial team, and publisher. The process is guided by key principles, including quality, relevance, integrity, and transparency. The peer review process is essential in ensuring that the published research makes a significant contribution to the scientific community and helps advance the field of study.

ARCC is committed to recognizing the invaluable service performed by our dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, a reviewer will receive a review certificate for the articles reviewed.

All Reviewer’s Personalized Profiles are available on our website

The reviewer can edit or update their profile anytime and has the history of all previous articles reviewed through the reviewer’s portal.

When the reviewer has completed at least two reviews, they become a ‘Recognized Reviewer’ and ARCC awards them with a 'Reviewer Excellence Certificate’.

If a reviewer has completed at least ten reviews in two years, they become an ‘Outstanding Reviewer’ and 'recommended for Executive or Editorial Board Member’ for the ARCC Journals.