GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Firstly, the editorial team of Agronomy Research would like to 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 the members of Editorial Board, through the online management system called Manuscript Manager. The invitation includes manuscript details (title, authors, and abstract), and an indication of the time frame in which we would like to receive the review.

To accept/decline the review request, first the reviewers need to create an account in the Manuscript Manager. Click here to create your Manuscript Manager account.
Walkthrough on how to create an account

If you already have an Manuscript Manager account, please click here to log in to accept/decline the review request.
Walkthrough on how access a manuscript and submit a review in Manuscript Manager

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, we would appreciate if you could 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.

Confidentiality
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 in the platform. You are expected to evaluate the article according to originality, methodology, structure, framework of previous research, adequacy of statistical methods and use of language.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Reviewers may use AI tools (such as language assistance software) to support wording or clarity when drafting their review reports, provided that confidentiality and ethical standards are strictly upheld. Reviewers must not upload, input, or disclose any part of the manuscript, abstract, or confidential review content to public AI systems or third-party platforms. Any use of AI tools in preparing a review should be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, integrity, and confidentiality of their evaluations.

Checklist
• 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.

REVIEW POLICY ON SPECIAL ISSUES

Special Issues (SI) of Agronomy Research are subject to the same double-blind peer-review process, standards, and quality control as regular issues of the journal. Regardless of whether a Special Issue is guest-edited, final editorial authority and oversight of the review process remain with the main Editorial Board of Agronomy Research.

Where a Special Issue has one or more Guest Editors, their role is to coordinate the call for papers, propose suitable reviewers, and provide subject-specific expertise relevant to the theme of the issue. Guest Editors do not independently manage the peer-review process. Each Special Issue is assigned a member of the main Editorial Board, who works alongside the Guest Editor(s) throughout the process and holds final approval over reviewer selection, review outcomes, and acceptance decisions. All manuscripts are processed through the journal’s official Manuscript Manager system, and every submission requires evaluation by a minimum of two independent reviewers, consistent with the standard applied to regular issues.

To safeguard editorial independence, any manuscript authored or co-authored by a Guest Editor of a given Special Issue will be automatically reassigned to the Assigned Editor or another member of the main Editorial Board for handling; the Guest Editor concerned will not be involved in the review or decision process for that manuscript.

Guest Editors are required to disclose to the editorial office any potential conflicts of interest relevant to the Special Issue, including personal, professional, or financial relationships with contributing authors, prior to accepting the role.

Reviewers invited to assess manuscripts submitted to a Special Issue should follow the same guidelines, checklist, and confidentiality standards outlined above for regular submissions.

HOW TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL ISSUE

Researchers interested in proposing and guest-editing a Special Issue of Agronomy Research should submit a proposal to the editorial office at [agronomy.research@emu.ee]. The proposal should include:

• A working title and description of the proposed theme, and its relevance to the journal’s scope;
• The names, affiliations, and relevant academic standing/experience of the proposed Guest Editor(s);
• A list of at least 10 proposed abstracts or potential contributions.

Proposals are reviewed by the main Editorial Board, which evaluates the quality and relevance of the proposed theme, its significance to the field, and the expertise and standing of the proposed Guest Editor(s). If approved, the journal will assign an Assigned Editor to the Special Issue, and the Guest Editor(s) will work with the editorial office to manage the call for papers. All submissions are processed and reviewed through the journal’s standard Manuscript Manager workflow, under the oversight described above.