- Printed Journal
- Indexed Journal
- Refereed Journal
- Peer Reviewed Journal
P-ISSN: 2664-844X
E-ISSN: 2664-8458
A good agriculture journal describes its peer review process, screens for plagiarism, registers a DOI for every article, lists indexing you can verify yourself, states charges before you submit, names a contactable editorial board, publishes under a clear licence, keeps a complete archive and preserves its content. Every one of those is checkable from your desk in about half an hour.
That half hour is the best-value time you will spend on any agriculture journal. It costs nothing, it happens before you commit anything, and it prevents both outcomes authors fear: months lost, and a publication that later turns out not to count.
| # | Check | What good looks like |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peer review described | A page saying who reviews, how many, blinded how |
| 2 | Plagiarism screening | Named tool, and stated consequences |
| 3 | DOIs registered | Every article has one, and it resolves |
| 4 | Verifiable indexing | Links to each database, not logos |
| 5 | Charges stated up front | Amount and the stage they fall due |
| 6 | Named editorial board | Real names with affiliations, and a contact route |
| 7 | Clear licence | Which Creative Commons licence, and who keeps copyright |
| 8 | Complete archive | Every issue since the journal began, still reachable |
| 9 | Preservation | Content stored in more than one place |
Not “we follow rigorous peer review” — the specifics. How many reviewers, blinded which way, who takes the final decision. A journal that cannot describe its own process in a paragraph may not have one.
This journal sets it out on the peer review and publication policy page: an initial editorial read, then two reviewers under double-blind review, with the Editorial Board deciding on the reports.
The stated consequence matters more than the tool. Here every submission is checked through Similarity Check by Crossref, and authors found guilty are debarred from publishing in the journal for six months. Retraction follows COPE guidelines.
Open any recent article and look. Then test it — put the DOI after https://doi.org/ and see whether it lands on the paper. Registration is a paid membership activity, so a publisher who has not joined has no DOIs to give.
Every article here is registered with Crossref under the prefix 10.33545. Our guide on what a DOI is explains why its absence is a genuine warning sign.
This is where the most damage is done. Logos are images. The check is to open the database and search. Our Indexing Information page gives a direct link for each entry so you can check every one without asking us.
Both numbers matter: how much, and when. Here there is no submission fee, and an article handling and processing charge of 2,500 INR (Indian authors) or 55 USD (international) falls due only after acceptance.
A charge that falls after peer review cannot influence the review decision. That sequence is worth more than the amount.
Names with affiliations, and a way to reach the journal. A board listed without institutions, or a contact page with only a web form, is worth a second look. People have found their own names on boards they never agreed to join.
You should be able to find out, before submitting, exactly what readers may do with your paper and whether you keep the copyright. This journal applies CC BY-NC 4.0 and authors retain copyright — terms on the content licensing policy page.
Open the archives and look for gaps. A journal that began in 2019 should have every issue since 2019 reachable. Missing years usually mean a platform migration that lost content — which tells you what could happen to your paper.
Ask what happens if the website disappears. Electronic content here is stored on three separate sources, and all articles are also kept in printed format in the society’s office. An unglamorous check that matters more the longer your work needs to stay findable.
Run these in sequence. Most problem journals fail one of the first three, and then you can stop.
Twenty-five to thirty minutes for a journal you are considering seriously. Against three months waiting for a decision, it is the cheapest work in the process.
Not because metrics are worthless, but because the number is the easiest thing on a journal website to fake and the hardest for an author to verify. Several organisations sell official-sounding “impact factors” unrelated to the Clarivate metric people assume is meant. A figure credited to a body you cannot identify has told you something — but not what it intended.
A fast decision is not evidence of a weak process; it usually means two reviewers happened to be free. What matters is whether the process is described and followed.
This is the common case, and which check failed matters:
| Failed check | How serious |
|---|---|
| Indexing cannot be verified | Serious — the claim most often inflated |
| Charges not visible | Serious — every legitimate journal states them |
| Review process vague | Serious — it is the core of what a journal does |
| No preservation statement | Minor alone; matters more for long-lived work |
| Archive has a gap | Ask why. Often a migration, sometimes worse |
| Board without affiliations | Worth an email before you decide |
One failure in the bottom half is a question to ask. One in the top half is a reason to look elsewhere.
One caution, because these checks can be applied too harshly. A young or small agriculture journal is not a risky one. It may have a short archive, a modest indexing list and a small board while still running proper double-blind review, registering DOIs and stating its charges openly.
Judge the process, not the size. The question is never “is this journal famous?” but “does it do what a journal does, and can I verify that from here?” Getting into the larger databases takes years and involves an application and an assessment period, so a short list is often a fact about age rather than about rigour.
A described peer review process, plagiarism screening, registered DOIs, indexing you can verify yourself, charges stated before submission, a named editorial board, a clear licence, a complete archive and a preservation policy. All nine are checkable in about half an hour.
No. An ISSN is an administrative identifier, not an assessment. Newsletters have ISSNs. Check review, indexing and DOIs separately.
Go to the database and search by name or ISSN. A logo is an image file — including when the journal was once indexed and has since been dropped.
It tells you the journal was assessed by the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences and given a score. It does not describe the review process, the indexing or the charges, all of which you still need to check yourself.
Not automatically. Read it. Flattery about a paper you have not written, a guaranteed turnaround and an unnamed impact factor in one email is a mass mailing.
Treat that as the answer. Every legitimate agriculture journal states its charges and the stage at which they fall due, on a page you can find without asking.
How to verify a journal for yourself:
Created by Dilbag Singh • 09 Aug 2026
P-ISSN: 2664-844X
E-ISSN: 2664-8458
International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science