Guidelines for Reviewers

Download the evaluation form here. 

Manuscripts submitted to the journal *Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria* for publication are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. A double-blind peer review model is adopted to preserve the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Carefully considered comments from reviewers like you provide valuable guidance to the editors when making decisions regarding manuscript acceptance.

Reviewer Selection:

When selecting reviewers, we ensure they meet the following criteria:

  • Appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Adequate academic experience to assess the manuscript, typically holding a doctoral degree.
  • Experience in the specific subject area.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

Reviewers who agree to evaluate a manuscript are responsible for:

  • Declaring any conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Promptly declining an invitation if unavailable, and, if possible, recommending alternative reviewers.
  • Completing the review and submitting the report within the expected timeframe.
  • Evaluating the manuscript impartially and preparing a detailed report with specific comments.
  • Reporting any suspected misconduct to the editors for further investigation.
  • Maintaining confidentiality of the assigned manuscripts.

To maintain an efficient and effective peer review process and ensure smooth editorial service, we kindly ask reviewers to take a few minutes to read the following guidelines.

We adhere strictly to the standards established by COPE for ethical academic publishing with maximum transparency. Therefore, we expect reviewers who accept to conduct reviews to comply with these ethical requirements. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers when reviewing manuscripts submitted to *Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria*.

Timely communication between the journal and reviewers is crucial to ensure a consistent, fair, and prompt review process. We expect prospective reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline an invitation to review in a timely manner.
  • Return the review within the proposed deadline.
  • Recommend relevant alternative reviewers if unable to complete the review.

Timeliness of Response

Prompt communication between the journal and reviewers is essential to facilitate a consistent, fair, and timely peer review of manuscripts. We expect reviewers to:

  • Accept or decline an invitation to peer review based on the title and abstract in a timely manner.
  • Submit their review within the proposed deadline. If circumstances change and you cannot fulfill your original agreement or require an extension, please notify the journal immediately.
  • If unable to review, suggest some relevant alternative reviewers whenever possible.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

It is essential that reviewers provide unbiased feedback. Before conducting a review, reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature. If you are uncertain whether a conflict exists that could affect your ability to conduct the review, please inform the journal and seek advice.

Confidentiality

Respect for the confidentiality of the peer review process is fundamental. Information from the article must not be used or shared in part or in full until the article is published. Reviewers should also take care not to reveal their identity to the authors.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports and are not permitted to impersonate others during the review process. If you wish to involve others in the peer review process, you must request prior permission from the journal’s editorial office. The names of individuals who contributed to the review should be included in the signature of the review report.

Suspected Ethical Violations

Reviewers should report any suspected misconduct to the editorial office for further investigation. For example, you may notice significant similarities between the manuscript under review and another manuscript submitted to a different journal simultaneously, or one that has already been published. For any ethical concerns, please contact the editorial office directly by email.

 

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

To ensure a thorough and fair review of manuscripts, reviewers are required to complete an evaluation form covering the following essential aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: The results presented in the manuscript must be the authors’ original contribution, free of plagiarism or fabrication. The presentation of new ideas, methods, or findings is valued.

  2. Relevance and Impact: The content of the paper should be interesting and relevant to the journal’s audience, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the field of study.

  3. Scientific Rigor: The design and execution of the study must meet recognized technical standards. Conclusions should be supported by solid evidence, and the methodology must be transparent and reproducible.

  4. Research Ethics: The study is expected to have been conducted ethically and respectfully, particularly in research involving humans, animals, or other study subjects.

  5. Language Quality: The manuscript must be written clearly and precisely in English, free from spelling or grammatical errors, to ensure effective communication.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback to improve the quality and relevance of the manuscripts under review. Editors make decisions based on careful consideration of all reviewer comments, ensuring a fair and transparent editorial process.