• Assess submissions for scope fit, ethics compliance, and scientific merit.
• Select qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.
• Provide clear decision letters with actionable guidance for authors.
• Monitor review timelines and follow up on late reviews.
• Escalate ethical concerns to the editorial office promptly.

Editors should ensure manuscripts include ethics approvals, conflict of interest disclosures, and data availability statements. Studies with unclear methods, insufficient data, or potential misconduct should be flagged for further review.

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific validity, originality, and relevance to Journal of Farming. Editors should avoid bias and maintain consistency across decisions.

Typical outcomes include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Decisions should summarize key issues and priorities for revision.

Encourage reviewers to focus on methodological rigor, clarity of reporting, and applied relevance. Reviews should be constructive and respectful, offering specific guidance for improvement.

Editors may invite early career reviewers when appropriate and should emphasize confidentiality and review quality.

After initial screening, assign two or more reviewers based on topic expertise. When reviews conflict, weigh methodological strengths and consider an additional review if needed.

Timely decisions respect author timelines and maintain reviewer engagement.

Decision letters should summarize the rationale for the outcome and prioritize the most critical issues. Clear communication reduces revision cycles and improves author experience.

Editors must treat manuscripts and reviewer identities as confidential. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and editors should recuse themselves when necessary.

Unpublished content should not be used for personal research or shared outside the editorial process.

Editors are asked to acknowledge new assignments quickly, invite reviewers within a short window, and aim for clear decisions within reasonable timelines. If reviews are delayed, communicate with the editorial office so deadlines can be extended or additional reviewers can be invited. A reliable process strengthens author trust and keeps Journal of Farming competitive.

For studies on crops, livestock, soil, and farming systems, verify that methods, statistics, and field conditions are reported with enough detail for replication. Encourage data availability statements and, when relevant, code or model documentation. If access is restricted, authors should describe how readers can request data. Transparent reporting protects the credibility of Journal of Farming and supports real world adoption.