GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
Firstly, thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to reviewing, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standards of Agronomy Research.
Invitation to Review
Reviewer invitations for Agronomy Research are sent out by email from the members of Editorial Board. The invitation includes information about the title and abstract of the manuscript and an indication of the time frame in which we would like to receive the review. After agreeing to review the paper, the reviewer will be provided with the entire manuscript. We encourage reviewers to contact the editorial office at any time if they require additional information or assistance.
On receipt of the invitation to review, you should read the editor’s e-mail, which includes the article abstract, to determine whether the subject is within your area of expertise and whether you can complete the review in the stated time period.
If you decline the invitation to review, please suggest a colleague who may be able to review the manuscript. If appropriate, the editor will send an invitation to review to that individual. You may not “transfer” your invitation to review the manuscript to a colleague.
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially. This means you can’t share the material you have been provided with anyone without prior authorization from the editor. Since peer review is confidential, you also must not share information about the review with anyone without permission from the editors and authors. If you wish to elicit an opinion from colleagues or students regarding the article you should let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome additional comments, but whoever else is involved will also need to keep the review process confidential. To help us protect your identity, please do not reveal your name within the text of your review. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.
Conduct the Review with utmost sincerity
You will be asked to evaluate the article on a number of criteria. Template for the Review is provided HERE. You are expected to evaluate the article according to originality, methodology, structure, framework of previous research, adequacy of statistical methods and use of language.
• Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the research.
• Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
• Bring out any points concerning journal’s standards and formatting.
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, point it out to the editor, providing as much detail as possible.
• Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Statistical errors, Results and Discussion, Conclusions, language and References.
Don’t miss the report submission deadline
Since the journal follows quick review process and shows respect to the editor’s eagerness, your timely submission of report is highly appreciated.
Communicate your report to the editor
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Commentary should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name. Avoid comments to authors about acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the categories the editor uses for classifying the article.
a) Reject (if there are serious flaws in experimental design, incorrect interpretation of data, extensive additional experiments required, or any organizational or English usage flaws that prevent critical review of the manuscript)
b) Accept without revision
c) Revise (either major, moderate or minor, list required changes)
Last, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article.
Reviewing (or re-reviewing) revised manuscripts
For the sake of editorial consistency and fairness to the authors, we ask that referees who agree to review one version of a given manuscript also commit to reviewing future revisions if necessary. In an effort to minimize the resulting burden, we make every effort to handle revisions editorially and to minimize unproductive resubmission cycles.