Peer Review Process

This journal strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it with some proof/web links in the report.
Studies that are carried out to reconfirm/replicate the results of any previously published paper with a new data set may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter.
This publisher believes that no manuscript should be rejected only based on ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often, a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer thinks is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to frustrating decisions and delay the publication. The journals will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).
Materials and methods (Kindly comment on the suitability and technical standards of the methods. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided so that another researcher Agriculture Archives: an International Journal can reproduce the experiments described)
Results and discussion (Kindly comment on 1. Are the data well controlled and robust? 2. Authors should provide relevant and current references during discussion. 3. Discussion and conclusions should be based on facts and figures. Biased claims should be pointed out. 4. Are statistical analyses must for this paper? If yes, have sufficient and appropriate statistical analyses been carried out?)
Conclusion (Is the conclusion supported by the data discussed inside the manuscript? Conclusions should not be biased and should be based on the data presented inside the manuscript only. Authors should provide adequate proof for their claims without overselling them)
Are all the references cited relevant and adequate? Are there any other suitable current references authors need to cite?
This publisher believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors’ discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest to the authors how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. The reviewers’ comments should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.
We are very much reluctant to go against the reviewers’ suggestions (particularly on technical areas). Therefore, authors are requested to treat reviewers’ suggestions with utmost importance.
Appeal: Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to submission@scienceletters.org or editor@scienceletters.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, some time will likely elapse before the journal can respond, and the paper must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Academic Editor’s comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions to the journal. So the processing of the appeal may well take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered, and the paper may not be resubmitted.