Deliver Constructive Peer Review For Farming Research
Peer reviewers are central to the Journal of Farming (JF). Your evaluation ensures that published research is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and valuable for agricultural practice.
Reviewers assess the scientific quality, originality, and practical relevance of submissions. Reviews should be fair, specific, and respectful, with recommendations grounded in evidence.
JF values reviewers with field experience who can evaluate feasibility and scalability for real farming systems.
Methods And Data Quality
Check study design, sampling, statistical analysis, and whether data supports the conclusions.
Relevance To Farming
Evaluate if findings have clear implications for crop, livestock, soil, water, or agricultural systems.
Clarity And Reporting
Ensure the manuscript explains objectives, methods, results, and limitations with transparency.
Objective And Transparent
Separate evidence from opinion and cite specific sections or figures when raising concerns.
Actionable Feedback
Offer practical revisions that help authors strengthen the science and presentation.
Data And Ethics
Verify that data access, field permissions, and animal welfare statements are addressed.
Balanced Recommendation
Consider novelty, rigor, and relevance together when advising acceptance or rejection.
Conflict Of Interest
Decline review if personal, financial, or professional relationships could affect impartiality.
Confidential Handling
Do not share manuscripts or use information for personal gain before publication.
If you suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical concerns, notify the editor with specific evidence. Do not contact authors directly or disclose review status.
Respond Promptly
Accept or decline review invitations quickly so editors can keep decisions moving.
Request More Time
If you need additional time, inform the editor early to avoid delays for authors.
Consistent, timely reviews strengthen author trust and improve the overall quality of published research.
Begin with a brief summary of the manuscript in your own words. Provide major comments on study design or interpretation, then offer minor comments on clarity, references, or presentation.
Recommendations should indicate whether the paper is suitable for acceptance, revision, or rejection. Avoid making decisions based solely on editorial preferences or writing style. Where appropriate, suggest additional literature, clarify statistical tests, and comment on practical implications.
Reviews should be written in a professional tone and avoid personal criticism.
Interested In Reviewing For JF?
Register your reviewer profile or contact us with your areas of expertise.
