The Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical double-blind peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. The peer review system is designed to uphold academic integrity, originality, and relevance in weed science and allied disciplines.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

•    Maintain the scientific quality and originality of published research
•    Ensure methodological rigor and ethical compliance
•    Prevent publication of plagiarized, redundant, or low-quality manuscripts
•    Provide constructive feedback to authors for improving their work

Manuscript Submission and Initial Screening

All manuscripts are submitted online to the Editorial Office with a declaration that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere.

The Editorial Office performs an initial technical check for:

•    Scope and relevance to the journal
•    Compliance with author guidelines (format, style, structure)
•    Plagiarism screening using standard plagiarism detection software

Manuscripts with plagiarism exceeding 20% are rejected and returned to authors for revision and resubmission.

Editorial Evaluation

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are forwarded to the Chief Editor.

The Chief Editor evaluates the manuscript for:

•    Scientific merit and originality
•    Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
•    Overall suitability for peer review

Manuscripts deemed unsuitable at this stage are rejected within two weeks of submission.

Type of Peer Review

The Indian Journal of Weed Science employs a Double-Blind Peer Review System, where:

•    Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
•    Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers

This ensures objectivity, fairness, and impartiality in the evaluation process.

Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on:

•    Subject expertise
•    Research experience
•    Absence of conflict of interest

Reviewers may be selected from the Editorial Board or from external institutions. In cases of conflicting reviewer recommendations, the manuscript is sent to a third reviewer.

Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

•    Originality and novelty of the research
•    Scientific and methodological soundness
•    Ethical compliance
•    Clarity of presentation and interpretation of results
•    Adequate and appropriate referencing

Reviewer comments are forwarded to the corresponding author without revealing reviewer identities. Authors are required to submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. Revised manuscripts may be re-reviewed to ensure that reviewer concerns are adequately addressed.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ recommendations and authors’ responses, the manuscript is forwarded to the Chief Editor for final evaluation.

The final decision may be:

•    Accept
•    Accept with minor revisions
•    Major revision
•    Reject

The decision of the Chief Editor is final and is communicated to the authors.

Peer Review Timeline

•    Initial editorial screening: within 2 weeks
•    Peer review process: 2–8 weeks
•    Author revision: typically within 3 weeks

Multiple rounds of revision may be requested if necessary.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

•    Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
•    Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
•    Declare any conflict of interest
•    Avoid personal opinions regarding acceptance in comments to authors
•    Submit confidential recommendations to the Editor separately

Language editing and copyediting are not part of the peer review process.

Final Decision and Communication

Authors receive a detailed decision letter including reviewer comments. Reviewer comments may be shared verbatim. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final publication decision.

Special Issues and Conference Proceedings

Special issues and conference proceedings may follow modified peer review procedures involving Guest Editors or Scientific Committees.

Full details of the peer review process for such issues are available upon request.

Becoming a Reviewer

Researchers interested in serving as reviewers for the Indian Journal of Weed Science may contact the Editorial Office at:

📧 editorisws@gmail.com

Applicants should provide:

•    Contact details
•    Institutional affiliation
•    Areas of expertise (subject classifications)

Approved reviewers will be added to the reviewer database and notified via email.