Guideline

For Reviewer's

Gujarat Universities Agricultural Research Journal ensure that the peer-review process is completely fair, unbiased & on time. Reviewers are the backbone of the journal. Comments and evaluations of reviewers play a vital role in taking a decision on the fate of the manuscripts in consultation with the editors and calibrating with multiple factors such as scope & relevance, and the impact of the research. The journal are in line with COPE guidelines for the review process.

Reviewers are suggested to be in contact with the assigning Editors. Reviewer critical evaluations related to the content quality of the manuscript need to be submitted to both author & editor. The whole review process is confidential as the unpublished content is considered to be classified. The review should be very objective and the main focus should be on the quality improvement of the journal.

Personal criticism and comment are strictly prohibited inside the review comments. The review comments should be clear enough with supporting references. Reviewers are advised to include the strength, weaknesses, relevance, and impact of the research work as well as the originality of the research presented in the manuscript.

Reviewers should maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest, disclosing any relationships or affiliations that could bias their assessment of the manuscript. Reviewers should respond promptly to invitations to review and complete their evaluations within the agreed-upon timeframe, typically within two to three weeks. Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from discussing their content with others without the explicit permission of the journal's editor.

The editor needs to forward the review comments to the other potential reviewers in addition to the authors. A reviewer should not cite the unpublished manuscript to avoid any cert of clashes.

The following points should be focused on as the part of a standard review process:

1. The title and content should fall within the aim & scope of the journal.
2. All sections of the manuscript such as the title, abstract, keywords, methods, and conclusions are consistent with the objective of the paper. The controls included in the experimental work are rational and adequate.
3. The writing is easy to comprehend without distractions and deviations.
4. The methodology is clear and easy to be repeated by another researcher.
5. The methodology has consent and ethical approvals as and when appropriate and applicable.
6. The analytical and statistical methods are appropriate and relevant to the study. The findings and conclusions are adequately supported by the data.
7. The information is not repeated either in text, tables or figure.
8. The references adequately represent the data and interpretations are up to date without missing on key citable information.
9. With regard to the length of the manuscript, the suggestions with precise comments can be made for either expanding, condensing, merging or deleting the content.