Brief Description of the Article Selection Process

Alfa Revista de Investigación en Ciencias Agronómicas y Veterinarias submits manuscripts to a double-blind peer review process by specialist peers.

Every manuscript submitted will undergo a preliminary examination by the Alfa Revista de Investigación en Ciencias Agronómicas y Veterinarias Editorial Team. Specifically, the article's alignment with the journal's aims will be assessed. This decision will be communicated to the author within 2 weeks of article receipt.

If the manuscript complies with guidelines and falls within the journal's scope, editors will send the article to at least two selected international reviewers. Reviewer guidelines and criteria relate to content quality, relevance, scientific nature, topic interest, scientific methodology use, updated primary and secondary literature, and bibliography. The peer review system is anonymous. Reviewers are encouraged to follow COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, available at www.publicationethics.org.

The final decision regarding article acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Team. Decisions are typically communicated within 6 weeks of article submission.

Summary of the Peer Review Process

1. Pre-review: Authors (previously registered on the journal platform: https://revistaalfa.org/index.php/revistaalfa/user/register) initiate the process by submitting the article via the Alfa Revista de Investigación en Ciencias Agronómicas y Veterinarias OJS platform (https://revistaalfa.org/index.php/revistaalfa/login). At this stage, the editor, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, conducts a preliminary review of the manuscript and evaluates:
   1. Content quality, discipline relevance, scientific nature, topic interest, scientific methodology use, updated bibliography, and relevant legal material.
   2. Relevance to the journal's editorial focus.
   3. Compliance with submission requirements.
   4. Initial anti-plagiarism and intensive AI use check. If criteria 2 and 3 are not met, authors are informed and allowed to make corrections. If plagiarism is detected, and depending on complexity, the Editorial Committee will inform authors of rejection or correction possibility. If all criteria are met, the manuscript proceeds to peer review.
2. Peer Review: The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Editorial Committee, invites peer reviewers based on the following criteria:
   1. Reviewers must have academic training, research profiles, and publications in the relevant knowledge area.
   2. Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest that could affect the evaluation process.

   Reviewers will use an online form or a Word file for evaluation and are encouraged to include comments or send an anonymous copy of the manuscript with comments.

   Evaluation options are:

   1. Rejected: The manuscript does not meet relevance, originality, and quality criteria.
   2. Accepted with Major Corrections: The article may be accepted after a second peer review process.
   3. Accepted with Minor Corrections: The Editorial Committee requests changes from authors. If these changes are incorporated, the article is accepted.
   4. Accepted: The article is suitable for publication.

   In cases where the Committee deems it necessary, a third reviewer is consulted, whose criterion will be considered in the final decision.

3. Approval or Rejection: The final publication decision rests with the Editorial Committee and requires compliance with style guidelines and anti-plagiarism review.

   Authors whose articles are approved with modifications and/or approved for publication commit to making content, format, and style corrections within 5 business days of the request.

   The final decision on manuscript acceptance, rejection, or any modification rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief. Any determination issued by this authority is considered final and unappealable.

Detailed Description of the Article Selection Process

Step 1. Pre-verification

• Lead: Editor-in-Chief
• Outcome: The editor sends the author an email with the decision to accept the article for peer review, a request for article modification, or a decision to reject the article.
• Turnaround: 2 weeks

During pre-verification, the following elements are reviewed:

1. Whether the article falls within the journal's thematic and methodological scope.
2. Whether authorship, affiliation, and metadata information are complete and reliable.
3. Whether the document complies with journal criteria (see Guidelines for Authors).
4. Whether the bibliography section is adequately sized, respects proportions of documents indexed in Scopus or WoS, is international, updated, and composed of recognized sources with respective DOI links.
5. Whether the article has been previously published.
6. Whether the article complies with good practices for scientific and ethical journal publication described by COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.
7. Whether there is any evidence of plagiarism or intensive AI use in the manuscript.
8. Whether the manuscript meets minimum standards for style, spelling, and punctuation.
9. Whether the article includes required annexes, including the Article Application Letter.

Manuscripts showing evidence of plagiarism, false author information, or any other ethical infringement will be immediately rejected.

Articles not meeting other criteria (unrelated to plagiarism or ethical aspects) will have an opportunity to submit a modified version within a set timeframe. Manuscripts not including required documentation (https://revistaalfa.org/index.php/revistaalfa/information/authors) will not proceed to the review process until these requirements are met.

Due to the diversity of topics in agronomic and veterinary sciences, the Editor-in-Chief may request assistance from the Editorial Coordinator and the Scientific Committee for initial review.

Online Tracking: Once an article is accepted for peer review, its status on the journal platform will change from "pending assignment" to "under review." From that moment, the author can check process status under the "Review" tab for tracking.

The submission platform assigns a unique identifier to each article. When making inquiries or sending emails, ensure the assigned code is included in the subject line.

Step 2: Peer Review

• Lead: Editor-in-Chief, Assistant Editor.
• Turnaround: Approximately 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the availability of selected reviewers.

In Alfa Revista de Investigación en Ciencias Agronómicas y Veterinarias, article review involves an evaluation by peers who provide expert advice on manuscript content (reviewers are not part of the journal's Editorial Team). It is a double-blind review, meaning neither authors nor reviewers will know each other's identities. At least two reviewers will be assigned. This promotes article confidentiality and review process objectivity.

Peer reviewer selection requirements:

1. Reviewers must hold at least a master's degree in the knowledge area relevant to the article.
2. Scientific publications in the last two years on the article's thematic area.
3. No affiliation with the same institution as the article's authors.
4. No conflicts of interest with the journal or any of its members: authors, editors, committee members, or administrative staff.

Selected peer reviewers will receive an invitation to participate in the review process from the Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editor. The reviewer may accept or decline the invitation. If accepted, the reviewer will access the anonymous full article text and an online form to guide their review process. The process will occur on the journal's OJS (Open Journal System) platform or via institutional email.

In this process, in addition to the article's topic and field of knowledge, the following will be evaluated: aspects related to title wording, abstract content and structure, selected keywords, introduction content and structure, methodology presented, argumentation level, results obtained, discussion, conclusion statements, and the article's overall impact and contributions to the knowledge area.

The peer reviewer will submit general comments and recommendations for text improvement and issue their recommendation with one of the following verdicts:

• Publishable without changes: The revised article version meets requirements and can be published as is.
• Publishable with minor changes: The article requires minor, easily correctable changes.
• Publishable with major changes: The article requires substantial changes, and the new version with author corrections must be resubmitted for further evaluation to peer reviewers or Editorial Committee members.
• Not publishable (rejected): The article is unsuitable for publication. Its publication would not contribute to its scientific knowledge field.

In cases of any discrepancy between peer reviewer recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief (potentially with Editorial Committee assistance) will make the final decision on the article. The Editor-in-Chief will issue a certificate to the issue's peer reviewers, sent by email within the following month.

Any suggestions reviewers wish to share with the Editor-in-Chief regarding review parameters and indicators, ethical aspects, or reviewer recommendations are welcome. These suggestions can be sent to the journal editor's email.

Reviewers must follow COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and have these responsibilities: contribute to publication decisions, be punctual, maintain confidentiality, ensure objectivity standards, acknowledge sources, and declare conflicts of interest.

Step 3. Editor's Decision

Lead: Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Committee

Turnaround: Once recommendations from at least two reviewers are received, the Editor-in-Chief has 2 weeks to communicate the decision to the author.

The Editor-in-Chief may accept (publishable), reject (not publishable), or request additional revisions from authors (publishable with minor or major changes). If the editor's decision contradicts peer reviewer recommendations, this decision must be justified.

The decision to publish may be delegated to guest editors (if applicable). Any editor with a conflict of interest will be excluded from the decision.

The author will receive an email with the editor's decision, including a summary of peer reviewer comments and suggestions, and setting a deadline for the author to complete the revision process.

Online Tracking: The editor's decision will be reflected in a change of article status on the web platform. When the decision is "not publishable," the article will be immediately removed from the journal's review process, and the author will find details in the "archive section."

Step 4. Manuscript Adjustments by Authors

Lead: Authors

Turnaround: Once the editor's decision is issued, the author will have these deadlines to review peer reviewer comments, submit changes, and required documentation.

• Maximum 1 week for "publishable with minor changes" decisions.
• Maximum 2 weeks for "publishable with major changes" decisions.

Publishable:

The "publishable" decision will be issued when:

1. Reviewer comments were positive, and the article was accepted for publication without further reviewer comments.
2. The article required minor changes, which were made and successfully passed the second round of reviews.
3. The article required major changes, which were made and successfully passed the second round of reviews.

Upon receipt of the final article version, a final plagiarism check is performed, and all required documents are verified for completeness.

Online Tracking: Once the "publishable" decision is issued, the article's status on the journal platform will change to "in editing." The author can track process progress in the "in editing" section.

Publishable with Minor Changes:

In this case, the article only requires minor, easily correctable changes. Authors must address all peer reviewer suggestions within the set deadline. If an author chooses not to comply with any recommendation, they must justify it in writing, in which case the editor reserves the right to make the final decision on such considerations. Upon receiving changes, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to issue a "publishable" decision or request further clarifications or changes if necessary.

Publishable with Major Changes:

Upon receiving comments, the Editor-in-Chief may issue a "publishable" decision if all appropriate corrections were made, or "not publishable" if the article does not meet reviewer criteria.

Step 5. Layout, Approval, and Publication

Lead: Authors, Publication Coordinator, Designer.

Turnaround: 20 days for layout and review.

• 3 business days to address any questions during the review process (authors).
• 3 business days to make required changes (designer).
• 3 business days to publish the final version online (publication coordinator).

Accepted articles will be sent to the assigned designer, who will begin the review and layout process. Through the publication coordinator, the designer may consult authors on any doubts related to style, context, or figure/table arrangement (technical terms, coherence improvements, formula and symbol structure, missing sources or citations, etc.).

The author will have 5 days to respond to and address all designer requests.

The final layout version will include the DOI identifier and assigned page numbers (publication coordinator).

The publication team will inform the author of any technical or administrative changes within the fixed deadlines.

Step 6. Correction and Retraction

Lead: Publication Team, Editorial Committee, authors, readers, and institutional bodies.

Turnaround: In case of notification, 1 week to initiate the protocol.

Documentation: Meeting minutes, institutional protocols, and ethical guidelines from COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and ELSEVIER: Publishing Ethics Resource Kit.

Alfa Revista de Investigación en Ciencias Agronómicas y Veterinarias is an open access publication, meaning anyone can view and verify the text without limitations or cost. If you, as a reader, have a question regarding an article, you can send your concerns, comments, and suggestions to the journal's email address.

If a demonstrable error or ethical problem is found, please contact us to initiate an appropriate investigation for immediate action. If the error or ethical problem is confirmed, the corresponding correction or retraction process will begin.

Once an article is published, corrections for significant errors will be published separately via a retraction document at the end of each journal issue.

Minor errors not affecting work comprehension will be corrected in online versions within 15 days of publication.

Retractions are published when authors, readers, or editors find significant errors in a published article. Such errors may be unintentional or result from scientific misconduct.

Editors will study the document in question and communicate with authors and relevant editorial bodies before making a final retraction decision. For this purpose, institutional protocols and recommendations from COPE: the Committee on Publication Ethics, Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, and Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit will be followed to identify alleged misconduct or malpractice.

By accepting the editor's invitation to evaluate the article, the reviewer must declare no conflicts of interest and adhere to the journal's ethical standards of confidentiality and plagiarism, which are published on the website.

Step 7. Publication Ethics and Social Control

The Editorial Team will take all reasonable measures to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts involving malpractice such as plagiarism, incorrect citation, or data falsification. If any malpractice is found, the manuscript will be directly rejected. If malpractice is discovered after publication, a retraction or correction will proceed.

Readers are invited to report any plagiarism situation to the editor's email address. Once the possible existence of malpractice is verified, the editorial procedure concerning the manuscript is suspended. The deadline for submitting any observations is 10 business days. If there is no response or after receiving author explanations, the editor must make a decision. The editor's decision is appealable to the journal's Editorial Committee (secretaria@revistaalfa.org).

Acknowledgements

Peer review is a fundamental pillar in ensuring the excellence, quality, and originality of our publications.

In gratitude for this contribution, the Journal formally grants the following recognitions to its reviewers:

• Digital Certification: Upon completion of each review process, the Journal will issue and send a personalized digital certificate accrediting the peer review work performed. This document serves as valid curriculum evidence for institutional and academic purposes.
• Annual Visibility and Indexation: To provide public and formal recognition, the Journal includes and publishes the official list of reviewers who actively collaborated during the period in its year-end issue.