Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Environmental Agriculture and Agroecosystem Management (JEAAM) follows a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that the highest standards of scientific quality are maintained. As a reviewer, your valuable contributions help improve the quality of submissions and uphold the integrity of the research published in the journal.

 

  1. Role of a Reviewer

Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate the scientific quality, clarity, and contribution of the manuscript within the journal’s scope. Reviewers provide constructive feedback to authors and help the editorial team make decisions about the suitability of the manuscript for publication.

Key Responsibilities:

  • Provide objective and fair assessments of the manuscript.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest and inform the editorial team if any such conflict arises.
  • Complete the review within the stipulated deadline (typically 2-4 weeks).

 

  1. Criteria for Evaluation

When reviewing a manuscript, please consider the following key aspects:

  1. Originality:
  • Is the work original and does it make a significant contribution to the field of environmental agriculture or agroecosystem management?
  • Does it present novel findings, methodologies, or approaches?
  1. Relevance to the Journal's Scope:
  • Does the manuscript fit within the journal's scope, covering topics like sustainable agriculture, agroecosystem dynamics, soil health, water resource management, etc.?
  1. Research Design and Methodology:
  • Is the research design appropriate for the study objectives?
  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail to allow replication of the study?
  • Are the statistical analyses sound and correctly interpreted?
  1. Clarity and Structure:
  • Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
  • Is the title descriptive of the content, and does the abstract provide a concise summary of the study?
  • Are figures, tables, and other supporting materials well-presented and relevant?
  1. Interpretation of Results:
  • Are the results clearly presented, and do they support the conclusions?
  • Does the discussion accurately interpret the findings and relate them to previous work?
  1. Ethical Considerations:
  • Has the manuscript followed ethical standards for research, particularly if human or animal subjects are involved?
  • Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism or duplication of content?

 

  1. Structure of the Review

Please provide detailed feedback to both the authors and the editors. Your comments should be constructive and aimed at improving the manuscript.

Reviewer Report Structure:

  1. Overall Recommendation: Choose one of the following:
  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject
  1. Summary of the Manuscript: Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, including its primary findings and overall impression.
  2. Detailed Comments: Divide your feedback into major and minor comments:
  • Major Comments: Address fundamental issues that need to be resolved (e.g., flawed methodology, misinterpretation of results).
  • Minor Comments: Suggest smaller, technical, or editorial improvements (e.g., clarity, grammar, formatting).
  1. Confidential Comments to the Editor: If you have any concerns that you would like to raise privately with the editorial team, you can include them in this section. These comments will not be shared with the authors.

 

  1. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Confidentiality:

  • Do not discuss the manuscript with others or disclose its contents.
  • Do not use any information from the manuscript for your own research until it is publicly available.

Conflict of Interest:

  • Inform the editorial team if you have any potential conflict of interest (e.g., personal or financial relationships with the authors).

Objectivity:

  • Your review should be unbiased and based on the merits of the manuscript alone, without personal preferences or biases.

 

  1. Review Submission

Once your review is complete, please submit your report through the journal’s online review system. You will receive automated instructions for accessing and uploading your comments.

 

  1. Timeliness

Timely reviews are essential for the efficient functioning of the journal. If you are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe or need an extension, please contact the editorial team as soon as possible.