Guidelines for Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind peer review model. The reviewers’ comments constitute a fundamental input to ensure the scientific quality of the articles and to support editorial decision-making.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

  • Appropriate expertise and knowledge to critically evaluate the manuscript.
  • Relevant academic background, preferably holding a doctoral degree.
  • Demonstrated experience in the specific subject area of the manuscript.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest with the authors.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Promptly declare any potential conflicts of interest before starting the review.
  • Timely decline the invitation if unavailable and, when possible, suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Complete the review and submit the report within the established deadline.
  • Evaluate the manuscript objectively, impartially, and rigorously.
  • Inform the editors of any suspected academic misconduct.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the assigned manuscript.

To ensure an efficient and transparent editorial process, reviewers are requested to carefully read the following guidelines.

The journal adheres to the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are encouraged to consult the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers .

Timeliness of Response

Timely communication is essential to ensure a fair and consistent review process. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline the review invitation in a timely manner.
  • Submit the review report within the agreed timeframe or notify the journal in advance if an extension is required.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers when unable to carry out the evaluation.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest of a personal, financial, academic, professional, political, or religious nature prior to initiating the review. In case of doubt, the journal should be informed.

Confidentiality

Assigned manuscripts must be treated with strict confidentiality. Their content must not be shared, cited, or used prior to publication.

Reviewers must prepare their own reports. If assistance from third parties is required, prior authorization must be obtained from the editorial committee.

Suspected Ethical Misconduct

Any indication of plagiarism, duplication, data manipulation, or other forms of academic misconduct must be immediately reported to the journal for appropriate assessment.

Rigorous Evaluation for Reviewers

Reviewers are required to complete an evaluation form addressing the following key aspects:

  1. Authenticity and Originality: Original contribution, free from plagiarism or data manipulation.
  2. Relevance and Impact: Significance and relevance of the manuscript for the journal’s audience.
  3. Scientific Rigor: Methodological quality, robustness of results, and reproducibility.
  4. Research Ethics: Compliance with recognized ethical principles.
  5. Language Quality: Clear, precise, and technically appropriate writing.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive comments that contribute to improving the scientific quality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscripts.