For Reviewers

DUTIES OF THE 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 ensure 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 submissions. 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.

Before Reviewing
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 

  • Title:

Does it clearly describe the article?

  • Abstract:

Does it reflect the content of the article?

  • Introduction:

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?

  • Results:

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?

  • Scope:

Is the article in line with the aims and scope of the journal?


Final Comments
• 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.

- AI use: Any use of AI must not violate the plagiarism policy and must be limited to the writing process, only to improve the language and readability of the paper.

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.

 

Contribution to editorial decisions: 

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

 

Promptness: 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Confidentiality: 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

 

Standards of objectivity: 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgment of sources: 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Chief Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and conflict of interest: 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the author.