Reviewer's Guidelines

Journal of Agricultural Research & Management

Journal of Agricultural Research & Management and SARM policies ensure that the peer-review process is completely fair, unbiased & on time. Reviewers are the backbone of our Open Access platform. We are thankful to all our reviewers for their effort, support, and time in evaluating the research articles. Comments and evaluations of reviewers play a vital role in taking a decision on the fate of the manuscripts in consultation with our editors and calibrating with multiple factors such as scope & relevance, and the impact of the research. We are in line with COPE guidelines for the review process.

Reviewers are suggested to be in contact with the assigning Editors. Major issues like plagiarism, conflicts of interest, data duplication, etc. need to mark to the assigned editor whereas critical evaluations related to the content quality of the manuscript need to be submitted to both author & editor. The whole review process is confidential as the unpublished content is considered to be classified. The review should be very objective and the main focus should be on the quality improvement of the journal.

Personal criticism and comment are strictly prohibited inside the review comments. The review comments should be clear enough with supporting references. Reviewers are advised to include the strength, weaknesses, relevance, and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the research presented in the manuscript.

The editor needs to forward the review comments to the other potential reviewers in addition to the authors. A reviewer should not cite the unpublished manuscript to avoid any cert of clashes.

The following points should be focused on as the part of a standard review process:

The title and content should fall within the aim & scope of the journal.
All sections of the manuscript such as the title, abstract, keywords, methods, and conclusions are consistent with the objective of the paper. The controls included in the experimental work are rational and adequate.
The writing is easy to comprehend without distractions and deviations.
The methodology is clear and easy to be repeated by another researcher.
The methodology has consent and ethical approvals as and when appropriate and applicable.
The analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and relevant to the study. The findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the data.
The information is not repeated either in text, tables or figure.
The references adequately represent the data and interpretations are up to date without missing on key citable information.
With regard to the length of the manuscript, the suggestions with precise comments can be made for either expanding, condensing, merging or deleting the content.

Reviewers’ role

To maintain the ethics of Open Access system and improving the quality, constructive comments and suggestions are highly expected.
Scientific merit of the article should be evaluated and unbiased comments after assessment of the manuscript should be provided in a timely manner
Should provide opinion on clarity, conciseness, relevance and significance of the manuscript/title
Expected to provide a constructive and informative critique of the manuscript Suggest ways of improving the content presentation, originality, and scope
Ensuring that the methods are described with sufficient details with appropriate study design
Ensuring that the manuscript includes the citations of the relevant previous work Uphold confidentiality, impartiality, integrity, and timeliness while reviewing the manuscript personal comments or criticism should be avoided.
Estimating the manuscript rating and recommend whether to accept or to reject or suggest a major revision or minor revision or to conclude with no recommendation
Has to notify and cease review when there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.
We Seek help in indexing of our Open Access Peer Review Journal

Reviewer’s Guidelines