Journal Reviewers

How to perform a peer review?

1. Invitation to Review

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by a minimum of two experts, who may be volunteer reviewers or those recommended by the academic editor during the initial assessment. Reviewers are tasked with assessing the manuscript's quality and offering a recommendation to the external editor regarding whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.

We kindly ask invited reviewers to:

• accept or decline any invitations as soon as possible (based on the manuscript title and abstract;
• suggest alternative reviewers if they have declined the invitation.

2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and to contact the journal's Editorial Office if they are uncertain whether something constitutes a conflict. Possible conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to):

• The reviewer is affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors;
• The reviewer has been a co-author, collaborator, joint grant holder, or has had any other academic relationship with any of the authors within the past three years;
• The reviewer has a close personal relationship, rivalry, or hostility toward any of the authors;
• The reviewer stands to gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper;
• The reviewer has any other non-financial conflicts of interest (such as political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, or commercial) with any of the authors.
• Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as bias for or against the paper or authors.

Reviewers are also recommended to read the Ethical Guidelines For Peer Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3. Declaration of Confidentiality

SIA journals follow a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript's content, until the article is published. They should also ensure their identity remains anonymous to the authors, both in their feedback and in any metadata associated with reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. If a reviewer wishes to delegate the review to a colleague, they must notify the Editorial Office.

4. Review Reports

The review report must be written in English. Below are some general guidelines to consider when preparing your review report:

• Read the entire article and any supplementary material, paying close attention to figures, tables, data, and methods.
• Your report should provide a detailed, section-by-section critique for the article.
• Ensure that your comments are thorough, so the authors can properly understand and address the points you raise.
• Reviewers must not recommend citing their own work, that of close colleagues, any other author, or the journal in the manuscript under review.
• Maintain a neutral tone and focus on offering constructive feedback that will help the authors enhance their work.
• Reviewers should refrain from using AI tools to assist in preparing the review report. Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports, and using such tools may breach confidentiality, proprietary, and data privacy rights. Limited use, such as for grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, and formatting checks, is acceptable, but should be disclosed when submitting the review

Review reports should include the following:

• A summary (one short paragraph) outlining the paper's aim, main contributions, and strengths.
• General concept comments, including:
  • Article: Highlighting areas of weakness, testability of the hypothesis, methodological issues, missing controls, etc.
  • Review: Commenting on the completeness of the review topic, relevance, knowledge gaps identified, appropriateness of references, etc.
• Specific comments referencing line numbers, tables, or figures that point out inaccuracies or unclear sections in the text. These should focus on the scientific content, not spelling, formatting, or language issues.

5. Rating the Manuscript

During the manuscript evaluation, please assess the following aspects:

• Novelty: Is the research question original and clearly defined? Do the results contribute to advancing current knowledge?
• Scope: Does the manuscript align with the journal's scope*?
• Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they meaningful? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the data? Are hypotheses clearly identified as such?
• Quality: Is the article well-written? Are the data and analyses presented clearly and appropriately? Are the results presented to the highest standards?
• Scientific Soundness: Is the study designed and executed correctly? Are the analyses performed at the highest technical standards? Is the data strong enough to support conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described in enough detail for another researcher to replicate the study? Is the raw data available and accurate (where applicable)?
• Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions relevant and engaging for the journal’s audience? Will the paper appeal to a broad readership, or is it of interest only to a specific group?
• Overall Merit: Does publishing this work provide overall value? Does it advance existing knowledge? Do the authors tackle an important, longstanding question with thoughtful experiments? Do the authors present a negative result that challenges a valid scientific hypothesis?

Note: If the reviewer identifies any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should report these concerns to the in-house editor immediately.

6. Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the next stage of the manuscript process, as follows

• Accept in Present Form: The manuscript can be accepted without any further changes.
• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions based on the reviewer’s feedback. Authors will have seven days to make the revisions.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance of the manuscript depends on the revisions. The author must provide a point-by-point response or a rebuttal if they cannot address some of the reviewer’s comments. Typically, up to two rounds of major revisions are allowed. Authors will be given fifteen days to resubmit the revised manuscript, which will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
• Reject: The manuscript contains significant flaws, lacks originality, and may be rejected with no opportunity for resubmission.

Please note that your recommendation is visible only to the journal editors, not the authors. Decisions regarding revisions, acceptance, or rejection must be clearly justified.

Becoming a reviewer

Getting involved in the peer review process can be a highly rewarding experience that can also improve your own research and help to further your career.

Who can become a reviewer?

Anyone with expertise in the article's research field can be a reviewer – no matter your career stage. Editors may request assessments of specific aspects, even if the overall topic isn't your specialty. You need enough knowledge to evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive feedback.

Become a reviewer

There are many ways to become a peer reviewer for a journal, including:

• Expressing interest: Reach out to journal editors to inquire about becoming a reviewer. Include an up-to-date curriculum vitae listing your research areas of expertise.
• Recommendation by a peer: Ask a colleague who already reviews for a journal to recommend you.
• Networking: Connect with editors and other subject experts at academic conferences and workshops
• Joining professional associations: Membership in relevant organizations can provide opportunities for reviewing and networking.
• Working for senior researchers: Senior researchers may delegate peer review duties to you.
• Formal peer review mentorship: Some journals provide formal programs providing mentorship from experienced peer reviewers or facilitate collaborative peer review, where multiple reviewers submit a unified report.

Recognition for reviewers

A reviewer’s input to the editorial process is invaluable, and as publishers, we seek to recognize the efforts of reviewers. Here are five ways to get recognition when you peer review for a journal published by Society for Innovative Agriculture (SIA).

Build your reviewer profile with Web of Science

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services credits reviewers for their work, allowing you to record, verify, and showcase your contributions even if reviews are anonymous or manuscripts are unpublished.
Simply opt-in via the questionnaire when reviewing for participating SIA journals. Once completed, your review details automatically transfer to your profile.
We protect reviewers’ anonymity and adhere to journal policies. Typically, only the review year and journal title are visible on profiles, keeping comments confidential unless both the journal and reviewer consent.

Add your peer review activity to your ORCID profile

You can opt-in to have Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services automatically export your review history to your ORCID profile. Once set up, every verified review added to your Web of Science record will automatically be exported to your ORCID profile with a link back to the record on Web of Science. Web of Science transmits this data securely and makes sure not to compromise reviewer anonymity or infringe on journal policies.

Give credit to anyone who helps you with your review

The Web of Science Reviewer Recognition service allows reviewers to share credit for their reviews. Choose “agree with co-reviewer” if you plan to work on this review with another researcher or if you want to give credit to a student who will help with the review. Once a review is added to the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition service, the reviewer can add collaborators via the review’s "Progress" page.

Get your Reviewer Recognition Certificate

Our journals annually provide personalized certificates recognizing your peer review contributions. Contact your chosen journal for more information.

Reviewer’s resources

COPE’s Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics
Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers - COPE
What to consider when asked to peer review: COPE guidance
Transparent Peer Review: What We’ve Learned
A guide to becoming a peer reviewer | Editor Resources
How to be a good reviewer: A step‐by‐step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript - PMC
Guidelines For Article Reviewers | Gates Open Research