Reviewer's Guide

Reviewer Guide • Double-Blind Peer Review

JAFSA Reviewer Guide

Guidelines for reviewers contributing to the rigorous, fair, confidential and constructive evaluation of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Applications.

The Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Applications (JAFSA) relies on qualified reviewers to help maintain the scientific quality, originality, integrity and relevance of published research. Reviewers are expected to provide an independent, objective and constructive assessment of manuscripts within their area of expertise.

JAFSA uses a double-blind peer-review process. Under this model, the identity of the authors is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors. This structure is intended to support impartial scholarly assessment and reduce the influence of personal, institutional or professional relationships on the review process.

01

Understanding the Double-Blind Review Process

Protecting the independence and confidentiality of scholarly evaluation.

What Does Double-Blind Peer Review Mean?

In a double-blind review, reviewers receive manuscripts without identifying information about the authors. Reviewers must also ensure that their own identity is not disclosed through the review comments or uploaded documents.

Authors Author identities are concealed from reviewers.
↔
Reviewers Reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
02

Reviewer Responsibilities

Every reviewer is expected to uphold high standards of academic integrity.

01. Provide an Independent Assessment

Evaluate the manuscript based on its scholarly merit, methodology, evidence, originality and contribution rather than the identity, institution, nationality or reputation of the authors.

02. Maintain Confidentiality

Treat the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process as confidential. Do not share, reproduce or distribute the manuscript without permission.

03. Provide Constructive Feedback

Identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Comments should help authors improve the quality, clarity and scientific value of their manuscript.

04. Identify Ethical Concerns

Alert the editor to potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, questionable research practices, inappropriate citations, conflicts of interest or other ethical concerns.

03

Review Workflow

How a manuscript progresses through the reviewer stage.

1

Invitation

The reviewer receives an invitation containing information about the manuscript and the expected review timeline.

2

Initial Assessment

The reviewer checks the manuscript's relevance, scope, quality and potential conflicts of interest before accepting.

3

Detailed Review

The reviewer evaluates the manuscript systematically and prepares confidential comments and recommendations.

4

Submit Review

The reviewer submits the completed assessment and recommendation through the designated editorial system.

04

What Should Reviewers Evaluate?

Core areas that should inform the reviewer's assessment.

✓
Originality and Novelty Does the manuscript offer original findings, ideas, approaches or applications?
✓
Scientific Contribution Does the work make a meaningful contribution to agriculture, food science or a related discipline?
✓
Methodology Are the research methods appropriate, clearly described and sufficiently rigorous?
✓
Results and Analysis Are the results adequately presented, analysed and supported by the evidence?
✓
Discussion and Conclusions Do the discussion and conclusions follow logically from the findings?
✓
Relevance and Scope Is the manuscript relevant to the aims and scope of JAFSA?
✓
References and Citations Are relevant sources appropriately cited and represented in the reference list?
✓
Clarity and Presentation Is the manuscript logically organized, clearly written and understandable to its intended academic audience?
05

Reviewer Responsibilities in Detail

Standards expected throughout the review assignment.

A

Accept Reviews Within Your Expertise

Accept a review invitation only when the subject matter falls within your knowledge and professional expertise.

B

Observe Review Deadlines

Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. If you require additional time, contact the editorial office promptly.

C

Support Your Comments

Where appropriate, support substantive criticism with clear explanations, evidence or relevant scholarly references.

D

Distinguish Major and Minor Issues

Clearly identify issues that affect the validity, interpretation or contribution of the study and distinguish them from editorial or minor corrections.

E

Maintain Professional Language

Reviews should be respectful, objective and professional. Personal attacks, discriminatory comments and inappropriate language should not be used.

06

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Protecting the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Keep the Manuscript Confidential

A manuscript sent for review should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not share the manuscript, its contents, figures, tables, data or supplementary materials with colleagues, students, external parties or other individuals without authorization from the journal.

Protect Your Reviewer Identity

Because JAFSA operates a double-blind review process, reviewers should avoid including their name, institutional affiliation, email signature or other identifying information in comments intended for the authors or in annotated manuscript files.

07

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose circumstances that could affect impartiality.

When Should You Decline a Review?

Reviewers should notify the editorial office if they have a personal, professional, financial or academic relationship that could reasonably interfere with an objective assessment.

  • You are aware of the identity of the authors and have a significant relationship with them.
  • You are currently collaborating with an author on closely related research.
  • You have a direct competitive interest in the research presented.
  • You have a financial or professional interest that could influence your assessment.
  • You believe that you cannot provide an independent and objective review.

When in doubt, disclose the potential conflict to the editor rather than making an independent assumption about whether it is acceptable to proceed.

08

Ethical and Research Integrity Concerns

Report significant concerns confidentially to the editor.

Potential Plagiarism

Report substantial similarities or suspected plagiarism through confidential comments to the editor. Avoid making accusatory statements to the authors.

Duplicate Publication

Alert the editor if the manuscript appears to substantially reproduce material that has already been published or submitted elsewhere.

Data or Methodological Concerns

Highlight serious concerns regarding data quality, experimental design, statistical analysis, methodology or interpretation.

Ethical Approval

Where applicable, identify concerns regarding research involving humans, animals, biological materials or other activities requiring appropriate ethical oversight.

09

Possible Review Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations support, but do not replace, the editor's decision.

Recommendation When It May Be Appropriate
Accept The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes, subject to the editor's final assessment.
Minor Revision The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or clarifications.
Major Revision Significant revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered further.
Resubmit for Further Review The manuscript may warrant another assessment after substantial revision.
Reject Fundamental problems make the manuscript unsuitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewers should explain the reasoning behind their recommendation. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editorial team.

10

What Makes an Effective Review?

Focus on feedback that is specific, useful and academically defensible.

✓ Do

  • Begin by identifying important strengths of the manuscript.
  • Explain major concerns clearly and objectively.
  • Provide specific suggestions for improvement.
  • Distinguish major methodological issues from minor editorial corrections.
  • Comment on whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence.
  • Identify unclear sections or unsupported claims.
  • Maintain confidentiality and professional language.

✕ Don't

  • Do not reveal your identity to the authors.
  • Do not make personal or offensive comments.
  • Do not demand citations solely to increase your own citation count.
  • Do not use confidential manuscript information for personal advantage.
  • Do not rewrite the manuscript in place of the authors.
  • Do not make unsupported accusations of misconduct.
  • Do not share the manuscript with unauthorized individuals.
11

Recommended Structure of Your Review

A practical format for preparing a clear and useful reviewer report.

1. General Assessment

Briefly summarize the manuscript's purpose, contribution and overall strengths.

2. Major Comments

List substantive concerns relating to research design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, originality or scientific contribution.

3. Minor Comments

Identify smaller issues involving clarity, organization, terminology, figures, tables, references, grammar or formatting.

4. Recommendation

Select the recommendation that best reflects your assessment and provide sufficient justification for the editorial team.

12

Reviewer Final Checklist

Before submitting your review, confirm that you have completed the following.

Before You Submit Your Review

✓ I have assessed the manuscript objectively and independently.
✓ I have considered the manuscript's originality and contribution.
✓ I have evaluated the methodology and research design.
✓ I have assessed the results, analysis and conclusions.
✓ I have identified major and minor issues separately.
✓ I have checked for potential ethical or integrity concerns.
✓ I have maintained confidentiality throughout the review.
✓ I have protected my identity in accordance with double-blind review.
✓ My comments are professional, constructive and sufficiently detailed.
✓ My recommendation is consistent with the comments provided.

Thank You for Supporting Scholarly Excellence

JAFSA appreciates the time, expertise and professional judgment contributed by its reviewers. Your independent assessment helps strengthen the quality, credibility and practical value of agricultural and food science research.

Visit JAFSA