Peer-review field guide
For Reviewers
Reviewers for the Journal of Agronomy Research assess the agronomic question, design, evidence and interpretation constructively while protecting confidentiality and editorial independence.
A reviewer advises the editor. The report should distinguish methodological concerns from preferences and should not investigate authors independently.
Review evidence profile
The recommendation must follow the written assessment of these linked elements.
Confidential expert role
Reviewing confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of the reviewer’s own work. Reviewers must not use unpublished information or contact authors directly.
Accept the invitation only if
- The subject and methods are within your competence.
- You can identify which aspects fall outside your expertise.
- You have no financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory or personal conflict.
- You can complete the review within the requested period.
- You can keep all files and discussion confidential.
- You will not delegate or use an external tool without editor approval.
Decline or contact the editor if
- A recent collaboration or close relationship may affect independence.
- A commercial interest involves the crop, input, product or technology studied.
- You recognise the authors under a blinded process.
- The work requires expertise you do not have.
- You cannot meet the deadline.
- You have already seen or reviewed a materially similar manuscript.
Core review framework
Assess what the manuscript claims and whether its evidence supports that claim. Language or institutional prestige must not substitute for scientific assessment.
Scope and contribution
Is the question agronomically relevant, clearly framed and distinct from what is already established?
Literature and rationale
Does the manuscript identify the relevant evidence, avoid selective citation and justify the study without exaggerated novelty?
Study design
Are experimental unit, controls, replication, randomisation, blocking, sampling and comparison groups appropriate?
Methods and reproducibility
Could a qualified researcher understand the materials, site, treatments, measurements and analysis well enough to evaluate or repeat the work?
Results and interpretation
Are results complete and clearly separated from interpretation? Do conclusions, limitations and practical implications remain within the evidence?
Data and declarations
Are data availability, funding, conflicts, ethics, permissions, author contributions and relevant regulated materials addressed?
Agronomy methods review
Apply only the dimensions relevant to the study, but do not overlook the context that determines valid agronomic inference.
Crop and environment
CheckCrop/cultivar identity, location, season, soil properties, weather, management history.
QuestionCan the reported effect be interpreted for the stated production context?
Plot and treatment design
CheckExperimental unit, plot/container, allocation, controls, replication, randomisation, blocking, treatment rate and timing.
QuestionIs inference made at the level that was genuinely replicated?
Sampling and measurement
CheckSampling frame and timing, instruments, laboratory validation, quality control and missing data.
QuestionCould measurement or selection bias explain the findings?
Multi-site and multi-season evidence
CheckSite/year structure, interactions, random effects, environmental characterisation and independence.
QuestionAre stability or generalisation claims supported across environments?
Practical interpretation
CheckMagnitude, uncertainty, feasibility, trade-offs, non-target effects and stated limitations.
QuestionDoes the claimed agronomic significance exceed the measured evidence?
Statistical review prompts
- Is the experimental unit correctly defined?
- Is replication genuine, with pseudoreplication avoided?
- Does the model reflect fixed, random, repeated or nested structure?
- Are multiple comparisons and missing observations handled transparently?
- Are assumptions checked and software identified?
- Are effect sizes and uncertainty reported, not only p-values?
- Are model validation and domain limits adequate?
If specialist statistical review is needed, state the concern without claiming expertise you do not have.
Study-type prompts
- Greenhouse/lab
- Are controlled conditions and the agronomic bridge explicit?
- Soil/microbiome
- Are sampling, controls, compositional limits and functional claims appropriate?
- Breeding/genetics
- Are population, environment, multiplicity and field relevance addressed?
- Remote sensing/model
- Are ground truth, validation, leakage, uncertainty and management use clear?
- Evidence synthesis
- Are protocol, search, eligibility, bias assessment and synthesis reproducible?
Ethics and integrity
Confidentially flag suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, selective reporting, authorship problems, undisclosed commercial interests, missing permits, regulated-material concerns or review manipulation.
Describe the evidence for the editor. Do not contact authors, search private information, accuse individuals in the author-facing report or attempt an independent misconduct investigation.
Confidentiality and AI
Editors and reviewers must not upload manuscripts, review reports or unpublished data to unauthorised external AI systems.
- Do not share the manuscript or review.
- Do not contact authors directly.
- Do not use unpublished findings for personal benefit.
- Do not delegate without editor permission.
- Notify the editor promptly of accidental disclosure.
Bias and citation safeguards
Judge the evidence, not the author’s identity, institutional resources or predicted influence.
Do not use as a proxy
Excluded factorsCountry, institution prestige, seniority, native language, funding level or commercial value.
Use insteadScope, design, methods, evidence, transparency and proportionate interpretation.
Citation requests
Not permittedPersonal-benefit citations, irrelevant additions, citation quotas or citation as a condition of acceptance.
PermittedIdentify a specific missing body of evidence and explain why it is necessary for interpretation.
Language
Not permittedRejecting sound work because the author is not a native speaker.
PermittedIdentify passages where language prevents scientific interpretation, without rewriting the manuscript.
Review-report template
The recommendation must be consistent with the written report. The current reviewer interface does not reliably expose a confidential editor-only field, so a sensitive concern must not be placed in an author-facing report; pause and ask the editorial office for a secure channel.
Brief assessment
State the question, design and main contribution in your own words, then identify the decisive strengths and limitations.
Major comments
List issues affecting validity, interpretation, reproducibility or the central conclusion. Explain what evidence or revision could resolve each issue.
Minor comments
List bounded corrections to clarity, reporting, figures, tables or references that do not alter the central evidence.
Sensitive concerns
Use a verified confidential editor-only channel for conflicts, integrity concerns, identity clues or limitations in expertise. If no such field is visible, contact the editorial office before submitting the report.
Recommendation
Select the system recommendation that matches your reasoning. It is advisory; the authorised senior editor makes the scholarly decision.
Reviewing a revision
- Read the response alongside the revised manuscript.
- Check whether each material issue was addressed or reasonably rebutted.
- Do not introduce a new requirement unless the revision exposes a genuine concern.
- Request additional experiments only when necessary and proportionate.
- Confirm that the revised conclusions follow from the evidence.
Reviewer records and recognition
Reviewer selection is based on verified subject and methodological expertise. Completing a review does not guarantee future invitations or confer editorial status.
A reviewer may ask the editorial office to correct expertise or profile information. Any public recognition must preserve manuscript and reviewer confidentiality.
Contact the editorial office