Reviewers Guidelines

All manuscripts submitted to AGRITROP: Journal of Agricultural Sciences undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that published articles meet the journal’s standards of scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity.
AGRITROP applies a double-anonymous peer-review system, where the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality of scholarly communication by providing independent, objective, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts.
These guidelines outline reviewer responsibilities, ethical obligations, evaluation criteria, and review procedures to ensure consistency, fairness, and transparency in the peer-review process.
AGRITROP follows internationally recognized peer-review ethics recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which emphasizes confidentiality, integrity, fairness, and independence in peer review (COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
 
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts objectively and providing constructive feedback to assist editors in making informed publication decisions.
A reviewer should:
  • Assess manuscripts based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance;
  • Provide clear, constructive, and unbiased comments to help authors improve their manuscripts;
  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly regardless of authors’ identity, affiliation, nationality, gender, institutional background, or academic status;
  • Maintain professional and respectful communication throughout the review process.
Reviewer comments should focus on improving scientific quality and should never include personal criticism, offensive statements, or comments that discourage authors from further academic development.
COPE emphasizes that reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments while maintaining professional conduct toward authors (COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
 
Before Accepting a Review Invitation
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should ensure that:
  1. Expertise and Suitability
The manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they have sufficient knowledge to provide a meaningful scientific evaluation.
Reviewers should carefully examine the manuscript title and abstract before accepting the invitation to ensure alignment with their research expertise.
  1. Availability and Timeliness
Reviewers should have sufficient time to conduct a thorough evaluation and submit their review within the requested timeframe.
AGRITROP expects reviewers to complete reviews within three weeks after accepting the invitation.
If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, they should promptly inform the editor and, if possible, suggest alternative qualified reviewers.
  1. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
A reviewer should decline the invitation if:
  • They have personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships with the authors;
  • They have collaborated with the authors recently;
  • They have any relationship that may affect impartial judgment.
If a conflict of interest is identified after accepting the review, reviewers must immediately notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
COPE recommends that reviewers disclose conflicts of interest and avoid participating in reviews where their impartiality may be compromised (COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
 
Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics
Manuscripts submitted to AGRITROP are confidential documents provided solely for the purpose of peer evaluation.
Reviewers must:
  • Keep all manuscript information confidential before, during, and after publication;
  • Not share manuscript content or review materials with third parties;
  • Not discuss the manuscript with anyone without permission from the editor;
  • Not use unpublished information for personal research advantage;
  • Not contact authors directly regarding manuscript content;
  • Respect the integrity of the double-anonymous review process.
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as privileged information and must not use information obtained through peer review for personal or professional benefit (COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
Conducting the Review
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Scope and Relevance
  • Does the manuscript fit the scope of AGRITROP?
  • Is the research relevant to agricultural science and the journal readership?
Originality and Novelty
Reviewers should evaluate:
  • Whether the research provides new scientific knowledge;
  • Whether the objectives and findings demonstrate originality;
  • Whether the manuscript advances current understanding.
Title and Abstract
Reviewers should assess whether:
  • The title accurately represents the research content;
  • The abstract clearly summarizes objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.
Scientific Content
Reviewers should evaluate:
  • Importance of the research question;
  • Scientific contribution;
  • Quality of literature review;
  • Logical structure and presentation.
Methodology
Reviewers should assess:
  • Research design;
  • Experimental methods;
  • Data collection procedures;
  • Statistical analysis;
  • Reproducibility of methods.
Results and Discussion
Reviewers should evaluate:
  • Accuracy of data interpretation;
  • Appropriateness of statistical analysis;
  • Relationship between results and previous literature;
  • Scientific significance of findings.
Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Materials
Reviewers should consider:
  • Whether tables and figures are necessary;
  • Whether data presentation is accurate;
  • Whether figures are clearly explained.
References
Reviewers should evaluate:
  • Accuracy and relevance of citations;
  • Adequacy of supporting literature;
  • Appropriate acknowledgment of previous research.
 
Language and Presentation
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript is understandable and written in appropriate scientific English.
Reviewers are not expected to perform complete language editing but should identify unclear explanations, incorrect terminology, or communication problems.
 
Ethical Considerations During Review
Reviewers should identify and inform editors about potential ethical concerns, including:
Plagiarism and Text Recycling
Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or excessive similarity with previously published works.
All previously published ideas, text, figures, tables, and data must be properly acknowledged.
AGRITROP handles plagiarism concerns according to its Plagiarism and Publication Ethics Policy and internationally accepted publication ethics standards (COPE, Text Recycling Guidelines).
Duplicate Publication
Reviewers should notify editors if a manuscript appears to have been previously published or substantially overlaps with another publication.
Data Integrity
Reviewers should report concerns regarding:
  • Data fabrication;
  • Data manipulation;
  • Inconsistent results;
  • Unsupported conclusions.
Misleading Information
Reviewers should notify editors if they suspect:
  • Ethical violations;
  • Copyright infringement;
  • Misrepresentation of research findings;
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process.
 
Review Report Preparation
A review report should include:
  1. Overall evaluation of manuscript quality;
  2. Major strengths and weaknesses;
  3. Specific recommendations for improvement;
  4. Scientific comments supported by evidence;
  5. Clear explanation of concerns requiring author response.
Reviewers should:
  • Provide constructive criticism;
  • Avoid personal judgment;
  • Explain comments clearly;
  • Distinguish major issues from minor revisions;
  • Avoid making acceptance decisions directly to authors.
The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.
 
Writing Effective Reviewer Comments
Good reviewer comments should:
  • Be respectful and professional;
  • Focus on manuscript improvement;
  • Provide specific explanations;
  • Suggest practical solutions;
  • Be supported by scientific reasoning.
Reviewers should avoid:
  • Personal criticism of authors;
  • Unclear or unsupported statements;
  • Excessive demands unrelated to manuscript quality;
  • Recommendations based only on personal preference.
 
Reviewer Recommendations
After completing the evaluation, reviewers may recommend:
  1. Accept without revision;
  2. Minor revision;
  3. Major revision;
  4. Major revision requiring re-review;
  5. Reject but encourage future resubmission after substantial improvement;
  6. Reject.
Reviewer recommendations must be supported by objective scientific evaluation.
The final decision is determined by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer reports, editorial assessment, and journal standards.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use During Peer Review
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research information into publicly available artificial intelligence tools unless explicitly permitted by the journal.
Reviewers remain responsible for maintaining manuscript confidentiality and protecting unpublished research information.
AI tools should not replace expert evaluation, scientific judgment, or reviewer responsibility.
AGRITROP follows ethical guidance that confidential manuscript information must be protected during peer review and should not be used for purposes unrelated to evaluation (COPE, Authorship and AI Tools).
 
Reviewer Acknowledgment
AGRITROP appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining scientific quality and integrity.
The journal periodically updates its reviewer database and recognizes reviewers who contribute to the peer-review process while maintaining confidentiality regarding individual manuscript assignments.