Reviewer Guidelines
The peer-review Process
The main objective of peer-review is to improve the quality of submitted articles. It is an essential component of a journal's publication process for maintaining high-quality standards. At least two potential reviewers review the manuscript submitted to Journal of Agricultural, Food Science & Biotechnology (JAFSB).
Reviewers are requested to assess the quality of the manuscripts and
provide recommendations to the editor on the manuscript for accepting,
rejecting or revisions. JAFSB requested to provide authentic,
sincere and positive review comments and criticism for each manuscript in order
to improve the quality of the submitted articles. We are determined to recognize
reviewers' efforts.
The Advantages of Volunteer Reviewers
When reviewing for JAFSB, the reviewer will:
|
· |
Receive a thanks mail and
reviewer certificate |
|
· |
Be included in the annual
reviewer acknowledgement list. |
|
· |
Receive reviewer award annually
based on outstanding performance |
|
· |
Be endorsed and verify your
review on Web of Science profile. |
|
· |
The reviewer is eligible for a
full waiver based on satisfactory performance of sincere reviewing. |
|
· |
Develop scholarly, research,
and teaching abilities. |
Confidentiality
Reviewers must maintain their
confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content. They must be aware of
revealing their identity to the authors. After submitting the review report,
the reviewer will be notified by email of the other reviewers' reports. The
review reports and authors' responses will not be published on the journal
website. Reviewers can evaluate the manuscript independently and must complete
the review report form.
Potential Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers
should notify the journal editor if they have a conflict of interest that could
bias the review and influence the report.
Review Process
JAFSB employs a double-blind review
system until the review process is completed. Each reviewer will be invited to
review the manuscript via email or the Journal management system. A title and
abstract of the manuscript will be sent at the time of invitation. After
accepting the review invitation, the reviewer will receive a full manuscript
through email or access by the Journal management system.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
|
· |
Reviewers are
discouraged to mention their citation of their work and their colleagues if
it is not necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. |
|
· |
The reviewer
must be strict about plagiarism of the article and must notify the editorial
office immediately if anything catches their eyes. |
|
· |
A reviewer is
requested to submit his or her review report within 10 days of accepting the
invitation from the editorial office. If they require additional time, they
must contact the editorial office. |
|
· |
While
reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should not be biased or partial. |
|
· |
Criticism
should not be presented mindlessly and offensive remarks are not acceptable. |
|
· |
The reviewer's
comments cannot be influenced by the reviewer's ethnicity, national origin,
language, race, religion, or place of birth. |
The review report includes:
A summary:
A summary is a brief
paragraph that summarizes the manuscript's main scientific contribution, aim,
and objectives.
The overall evaluation of article: Accept/Minor revision/Major Revision/ Reject in current form, but maybe resubmitted/Reject.
General comments:
Comments on each
section of the manuscript (title, abstract, introduction, materials and
methods, results and discussion, conclusion and underlining areas of strength
and weakness) must be described clearly in order to response by the authors.
General
Comments may focus on the following suggestions:
Strengths:
|
§ |
Clarity in
abstract |
|
§ |
Scientific
rigor |
|
§ |
Clear
presentation of results |
|
§ |
Comparisons
with previous studies |
|
§ |
Biological
relevance |
|
§ |
Implications for
future research |
|
§ |
Areas for
potential improvement |
|
§ |
Consistency in
presentation |
|
§ |
Subheadings for
chemical composition section |
|
§ |
Consideration
of figure types |
Please take the following into consideration while you read the article:
Title
Does it convey the content of the article clearly?
Abstract
Does it accurately sum up the article's contents?
Introduction
Does it clearly define the issue under consideration and describe the
veracity of the information provided by the author?
The introduction should typically include a synopsis of the background of
the research, an explanation of the research's conclusions, and any additional
findings that are presented for debate.
Materials and method
The methodology, assumptions, and experiments used in this study should all be explained.
|
· |
Does the
author describe the data collection process accurately? |
|
· |
Is the
theoretical foundation or reference employed suitable for this study? |
|
· |
Is the
exposure design appropriate for the question's answer? |
|
· |
Is there
enough information for you to replicate the research? |
|
· |
Does the
article mention any of the following procedures? |
|
· |
Are there any
novel approaches? Is there a new way described in detail by the author? |
|
· |
Is there
adequate sampling? |
|
· |
Have the tools
and materials utilized been sufficiently described? Does the article exposure
indicate what sort of data is captured, as well as the measurement? |
Results
The author must discuss the findings of his or her study in this section.
It should be well-organized and in a logical order. You must assess if the
right analysis was performed, as well as the usage of statistical techniques.
If you have superior statistical techniques to employ in this study, please
mention with proper citation and the interpretation does not need to be
provided in this part.
Tables and Pictures
Does it make sense to support the reasoning that was mentioned by
providing data that is clear and easy for readers to understand?
Discussion and Conclusion
|
· |
Are the
arguments made in this section reasonable and justified by fair results? |
|
· |
Does the
author make any comparisons between the research findings and earlier ones? |
|
· |
Do the study
findings present in the paper conflict with earlier theories? |
|
· |
Does the
conclusion describe how future scientific research may be improved? |
Specific comments
Reviewer can express their specific comments to the editor for improving the quality of the manuscript
|
§ |
Emphasizing
novelty or significance |
|
§ |
Is
there any plagiarism in this paper field that exceeds 20%? |
|
§ |
The
language, grammar, and style of the long sentences |
For further guidance, please
refer to the following documents:
COPE with Ethical Guidelines for
Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online.
Current Science
Publishing invites interested reviewers to join our journal.
Please send us your CV along with your research interest to the journal
office.
Managing Editor
Current Science Publishing
E-mail: jafsb@currentsci.com
jafsb.ccp@gmail.com
managing-editor@currentsci.com
Editor-in-Chief
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License.(CC BY-NC 4.0).