Reviewers guide

Responsibilities of Authors

The Author must send his or her paper to at least two to three external reviewers and experts in the same field of the study (send the checklist and form below  to the reviewer). Kindly keep close contact with the reviewers and implement all requested corrections on your paper before the final submission to the journal of Food Agriculture & Environment (JFAE).

Please note that inadequately or incorrectly prepared manuscripts will be rejected.  For non-native  English authors, let a minimum  two native English scientists or three language specialists  crosscheck your manuscripts(§: j.policy).

Please download the reviewer’s comment form here

Reviewers’ checklist

Details about the reviewer/Author
Reviewer’s name:
Field of expertise:
Manuscript  title:
Author’s name:

General comment:
Data and the statistical analysis:
Results and discussion:

Please rate the following:(1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = Fair) (4 = poor)

The English language
Well written
Clear text
Badly written
Unclear text

Accept as it is:
Require minor corrections (specify):
Requires moderate revision (specify):
Requires major revision (specify):

Doubts on ground of (specify)
Reject on grounds of (specify):

Additional comments
Please add any additional comments (Including comments or suggestions): 

Guidelines For Reviewers
Your role as a reviewer is very essential, as you validate the articles and consequently the journal. It is therefore essential for reviewers to be critical, impartial, and constructive and aim at producing high quality manuscripts for the scientific community and the general public. To achieve these ideals, reviewers are advised to read the guidelines below to aid them in their work.   Please use other resources available to you as well.

Ethics, time and capabilities

  • Reviewers should consider ethical issues of scientific publication: plagiarism, fraud, dual submission or publication, conflicts of interest, incomplete or missing references etc.
  • Reviewers should treat all manuscripts with strict confidentiality: please do not use unpublished data or the privileged knowledge obtained from the manuscripts for interaction or discussions anywhere or on any forum or platform before publication of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not exploit the data or contents of the manuscript in any way for personal gain.
  • Please allocate adequate time to review the paper and work within the stipulated deadline to avoid delays in publication.
  • Ensure that the paper is within your experience and expertise.

 Conducting the Review

General comments: Please read the guiding questions under each part to help you evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.       Structure of the manuscript: check whether it contains all the parts required. 

  1. Title: does it describe the article?
  2. Abstract: does if reflect the content of the article?
  3. Introduction: does it state clearly the problem under investigation, the aims and scope of the research, and include a summary of the relevant research in the context of the manuscript? If it is an experiment, is the hypothesis (es) stated clearly? And the experimental design mentioned?
  4. Experimental: Is the data collection process well described? Is the experimental design suitable for solving the problem stated? Is the information given sufficient for repetition of the research? Have the methods been chronologically presented? If new methods are used, are they sufficiently described in detail? Have the equipment, reagents, materials used been described? Were the measurements taken precise?
  5. Statistical analysis: Are the statistics used correct or suitable? Are  the errors described correctly?
  6. Results and discussion: Was the data presented clearly with tables or illustrations? If illustrations were used, are they reflective of the data and do they explain the work better than tables?  Were the results logically presented and was the interpretation of the results or discussion correct? Was the discussion related to the expectation of the research or previous research work?
  7. Conclusions: Are they clear and founded on the main conclusions of the investigation?
  8. References: Are these presented according to the JFAE style (see manuscript preparation) both within the text and at the end of the manuscript?

 Originality: look out for novelty of the ideas presented, and any additions to knowledge in the area.

 Quality: does the manuscript adhere to the scientific journal standards? Is it well-organized, concise and or of  high quality?

English Language: Is the manuscript well written, clear, without grammatical and typographical errors? Or is it badly written    ambiguous and full of errors?

Please give a clear recommendation, as to whether to accept, modify or reject the manuscript.
Provide explanation and justification for your recommendation or criticism.
Be fair, strict and polite in your recommendation or criticism, please state clearly if your comments are reflective of the data or your own opinion.
Be specific when commenting on any part of the manuscript.