This work is licensed under a
About the Journal
DOUBLE-BLIND PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
The JJAS double-blind peer-review process is summarized in the following steps.
More documented detail about this process: https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review
1. Submission of the Manuscript:
The submitting/ corresponding author should submit the manuscript for the JJAS online submission system. No other routes of submission are accepted. The submitting/ corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and peer-review process; and must ensure that all eligible co-authors, who qualify for the authorship criteria, have been included in the author list and have read and approved the submitted version of the manuscript.
2. Editorial Office Assessment:
The JJAS editorial office checks the manuscript’s style, composition, and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to ascertain it includes the required sections and stylizations. The office also ensures that the reviewer and the author are anonymous throughout the peer-review process. The title page that contains the research title, authors' names, affiliations, addresses, acknowledgments, conflict of interest statement, and any author-related information therein are separated from the submitted manuscript before being sent to the reviewer. At this point, the scientific quality of the manuscript is not reviewed.
3. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members:
The Editor-in-Chief sends the submitted manuscript to the editorial member most acquainted with its scientific theme and reviews it blindly and comprehensively. The editor-in-chief and editorial member checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the journal and is original and sufficiently of interest. If the manuscript successfully passes this step, the editorial member suggests 2-3 reviewers; if not, the manuscript is rejected without further review.
4. Invitation of Reviewers:
The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to potential reviewers he believes are appropriate for the manuscript. As responses are received, other invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required two admissions are accepted.
5. Response to Invitations:
Potential reviewers consider the invitation based on their experience, conflict of interest, and availability. Then they accept or reject. If possible, upon refusal, they may also suggest alternative reviewers.
6. Review is Conducted:
The process of double blind-peer review generally involves an exchange between the Chief-in-Editor and the team of reviewers, also known as the referees. After the referees receive the manuscript from the editor, they read it thoroughly and comprehensively and provide individual critiques, usually within four weeks.
In their review critiques, the referees:
- Comment on the validity of the science, identify scientific errors and evaluate the design, methodology, and statistics used.
- Judge the significance by evaluating the importance and validity of the findings.
- Determine the originality of the work based on how much it advances the scientific field.
- Evaluate the appropriateness and recency of the references and identify missing or inaccurate references.
- Recommend that the manuscript be published or rejected. Editors do not have to heed this recommendation, but in most cases do.
- Then submit the review to the journal with the recommendations: to accept or reject or submit elsewhere or a revision request usually flagged as either major or minor before further reconsideration.
7. The Journal Evaluates the Reviews:
The Editor-in-Chief considers all reviews received before making a comprehensive decision. In the case of conflicting opinions, the Editor-in-Chief usually sends the manuscript to a third reviewer for confirmation.
8. The Decision is Communicated:
The Editor-in-Chief sends the decision through the journal electronic system to the submitting/ corresponding author, including any relevant comments of the editor and reviewers, in a completely blind manner.
9. The Final Step:
If accepted, the manuscript is sent to production; if it is sent back blindly to the submitting/ corresponding author for either major or minor revision, the editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the manuscript. The modified version of the manuscript is then sent to the appointed reviewers unless they have opted out of further participation. This review step may proceed for three revision cycles to reach a decision. If the manuscript successfully passes this step, it is accepted, otherwise, rejected. However, if only very slight changes were requested, this follow-up review is done by the editors. The outcome of the review process is set on the electronic review page of the journal. The final decision is given to the Editor-in-Chief, who accredits this decision in a regular meeting with the JJAS editorial members. The submitting/ corresponding authors are informed about the outcome of their manuscripts through emails and the electronic review page of the journal.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
The Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences (JJAS) relies on members of the scientific research community to critically assess the scientific validity of manuscripts under consideration through a double-blind peer review. The purpose of the peer-review is to improve the quality of the submitted manuscript and the published material. Conscientious peer-review is a time-consuming task but is essential to assure the quality of scientific journals. The JJAS is very grateful for the time and effort invested in this review process.
The Responsibility of the Peer Reviewer
The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work and evaluate its relevance and originality.
Please consider the following:
- Does the article you are being asked to review match your expertise?
If you receive a manuscript that covers a topic that does not sufficiently match your area of expertise, please notify the editor as soon as possible. Please feel free to recommend an alternate reviewer.
- Do you have time to review the manuscript?
Finished reviews of an article should be completed within four weeks. If you do not think you can complete it within this time frame, please let the Editor-in-Chief know and, if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer. If you have agreed to review a manuscript but cannot finish the work before the deadline, contact the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible.
- Are there any potential conflicts of interest?
While conflicts of interest will not disqualify you from reviewing the manuscript, you must disclose all conflicts of interest to the Editor-in-Chief before reviewing. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, please, do not hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office.
The Review Process
When reviewing the manuscript, please keep the following in mind:
(1) Content Quality and Originality:
Is the manuscript sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's standards? Is the research question an important one? For assessing the manuscript's originality and suitability for the journal, it may be helpful to allocate its percentage among high-quality research. Is it in the top 25% of articles in this field? You might do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the domain. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the Editor-in-Chief.
(2) Organization and Clarity
Does it clearly describe the article?
Does it reflect the content of the article?
Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem under investigation? The introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain other research's findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.
- Materials and Methods:
Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article clarify what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
This section is where the authors should explain, in words, what they discovered in the research. It should be laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. This section should not include discussion and interpretation of results.
- Discussion and Conclusion:
Are the claims in this section supported by the results; do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article provide support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
- Tables, Figures, and Images:
Are they appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?
Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?
• All submissions are confidential, do not discuss any aspect of them with a third party.
- Ethical Issues:
- Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the Editor-in-Chief know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.
- Fraud: It is difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the Editor-in-Chief.
The Final Steps:
Please complete the “Reviewer’s Comments” form by the due date and send it to the receiving editorial office. Your recommendation regarding an article will be strongly considered when the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial members reach the final decision, and your thorough, honest feedback will be much appreciated. When writing comments, please indicate the section intended for the editors and that to authors. Please never hesitate to contact the receiving editorial office with any questions or concerns you may have.
The JJAS is a quarterly journal that publishes four issues per year; one volume annually and one number per season.
OPEN ACCESS POLICY
The JJAS provides immediate open access to its content based on the principle that research is freely available to the public, supporting a greater global exchange of knowledge.