Review Guidelines
Reviewer Policy
The International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science (IJRAFS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing. The journal follows the principles and best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers play a fundamental role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and scientific rigor of published research.
Role of Reviewers
Peer review is essential to ensuring that published research meets established scholarly standards. Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts through constructive and unbiased feedback. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based assessments that focus on the academic merit of the work rather than personal opinions about the authors.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to the journal are confidential documents. Reviewers must treat all materials received for review as strictly confidential and must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with third parties without prior authorization from the editor. Manuscripts and associated data must not be used for personal research, competitive advantage, or professional gain before publication.
Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Comments should be clear, detailed, and supported by reasoned arguments. Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific suggestions for improvement and to identify both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Conflicts may arise from competitive, collaborative, financial, institutional, or personal relationships with the authors or affiliated organizations. Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editor promptly.
Ethical Vigilance
Reviewers are expected to alert the editor if they identify potential ethical concerns, including but not limited to:
- Plagiarism or substantial similarity to previously published work
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Ethical concerns related to research involving human participants, animals, or genetically modified organisms
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Duplicate submission or redundant publication
Concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office and not directly to the authors.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following considerations:
- Originality, novelty, and contribution to the field
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
- Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
- Appropriateness of research design and statistical analysis
- Clarity and coherence of presentation
- Validity of interpretations and conclusions
- Adequacy, currency, and accuracy of references
- Compliance with ethical and reporting standards
Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) supported by detailed comments.
Timeliness and Professional Conduct
Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should notify the editorial office promptly. Invitations to review should only be accepted if the reviewer has the relevant expertise and sufficient time to conduct a thorough evaluation.
Anonymity and Review Model
The journal follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers must respect the anonymity requirements of the review model and avoid any actions that may compromise the integrity of the review process.
By accepting a review assignment, reviewers affirm their commitment to uphold ethical standards, maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, and contribute to the integrity and advancement of scholarly research.
