Guidelines for Reviewers

Dear Reviewer,

The Editorial Board of Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus sincerely thanks you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer.

Your expertise, integrity, and time are essential to maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and international standing of the journal. Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly communication, and your contribution directly supports the advancement of sustainable agriculture and natural resource management.

Peer Review Model

Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus operates a single-anonymized peer review process:

• Reviewers know the identity of the authors.
• Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
• The Editorial Office maintains confidentiality of all participants.

All manuscripts must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Before Accepting the Review Invitation

Please accept the review only if:

• The manuscript fits within your expertise.
• You can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
• You have no conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal).

Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Recent collaboration with the authors
• Same institution affiliation
• Direct academic competition
• Financial interest in publication outcome
• Personal disputes

If any potential conflict exists, notify the handling editor immediately.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards.

You should alert the editor if you suspect:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity to published work
• Duplicate or simultaneous submission
• Data fabrication or manipulation
• Ethical concerns regarding animal or human research
• Inappropriate authorship practices
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Use of artificial intelligence tools inconsistent with the journal’s AI policy

Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Manuscripts under review must not be:

• Shared with third parties
• Used for personal research advantage
• Cited or discussed publicly

Confidentiality applies both during and after the review process.

The Purpose of Your Review

A high-quality review should be:

• Objective
• Evidence-based
• Constructive
• Respectful
• Scientifically rigorous

Your role is not to rewrite the manuscript to match your stylistic preferences but to evaluate:

• Scientific validity
• Originality
• Relevance
• Methodological rigor
• Contribution to sustainable agricultural science

Evaluation Criteria

When preparing your report, please consider the following:

Scope and Relevance

Does the manuscript align with the aims and scope of Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus?

Does it contribute to sustainable agriculture, agroecosystems, or natural resource management?

Is it relevant to an international readership?

Originality and Contribution

Does the study provide novel findings or meaningful synthesis?

Does it significantly advance knowledge in the field?

Is it more than a local case study without broader implications?

Scientific Rigor

Are research objectives clearly defined?

Is the methodology appropriate and sufficiently described?

Are statistical analyses valid and reproducible?

Are data adequately presented and interpreted?

Structure and Clarity

Is the manuscript logically organized?

Is the abstract accurate and informative?

Are conclusions supported by results?

Is the language sufficiently clear for scientific communication?

(Language polishing is not the reviewer’s primary responsibility, but major clarity issues should be noted.)

Literature and Context

Is the literature review current and balanced?

Are relevant studies cited appropriately?

Are claims supported by references?

Ethical and Sustainability Considerations

Are ethical approvals clearly stated (if applicable)?

Does the research address environmental sustainability responsibly?

Are sustainability claims scientifically justified?

Structure of the Review Report

A. Comments to the Authors

Please provide:

• A brief overall assessment.
• Major comments (methodology, originality, interpretation).
• Minor comments (clarity, formatting, small corrections).
• If recommending rejection, clearly explain the scientific reasons.
• Tone should remain professional and respectful at all times.

Avoid:

• Personal criticism
• Dismissive language
• Unjustified negative remarks
• Requests to cite your own work unless scientifically necessary

B. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use this section for:

• Ethical concerns
• Publication priority evaluation
• Concerns about originality
• Overall recommendation

Ensure your recommendation aligns with your comments to authors.

Editorial Decisions

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor may decide:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The final decision rests with the Editor, who evaluates all reviewer input.

Grounds for Rejection (Common Issues)

Manuscripts may be rejected due to:

• Lack of originality
• Methodological flaws
• Insufficient dana
• Overly local relevance without broader significance
• Unsupported conclusions
• Ethical concerns
• Outdated or inappropriate analytical methods

Review Timelines

Timely reviews are essential.

If you anticipate delays, please inform the Editorial Office promptly so arrangements can be made.

Recognition of Reviewer Contribution

Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus recognizes the critical role of reviewers in sustaining scientific excellence. The Editorial Board deeply appreciates your voluntary service to the scholarly community.

Closing Note

By participating in peer review for Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, you contribute directly to strengthening research quality, sustainability science, and responsible agricultural innovation worldwide.

We sincerely thank you for your expertise and commitment.