Reviewer Guide

Peer reviewers are responsible for providing critical reviews by reading and evaluating the manuscript in accordance with their area of expertise, as well as offering constructive suggestions and honest feedback to the authors of the submitted article. Peer reviewers also assess the strengths and weaknesses of the article, suggest ways to improve its quality and contribution, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript.

Before Reviewing, Please Consider the Following:

Suitability of Expertise:
Is the article you have been asked to review within your area of expertise? If not, please inform the editor promptly. You may also recommend another reviewer who is more relevant.

Time Availability:
The review process is expected to be completed within two weeks. If you need more time, please notify the editor as soon as possible or recommend an alternative reviewer.

Potential Conflicts of Interest:
If you have any potential conflicts of interest (financial, professional, or personal) that could affect your objectivity, please disclose this to the editor before beginning the review process.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider the following:

Title

  • Does the title clearly and concisely reflect the content of the article?

Abstract

  • Does the abstract succinctly and clearly describe the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the article?

Introduction

  • Is the research background relevant and does it clearly present the research problem?

  • Does the introduction provide sufficient context for the research and is it relevant to the field of sustainable agriculture?

  • Are the objectives and hypotheses of the research clearly explained?

Originality and Suitability for Publication

  • Is there any indication of plagiarism (more than 25%)? Use plagiarism detection tools (such as Turnitin or iThenticate) if available.

  • Is the research novel, thorough, and significant enough to merit publication?

  • Does the article contribute to the advancement of knowledge in sustainable agriculture?

  • Is the article aligned with the focus and scope of JOAS?

Methods

  • Are the research methods clearly described and replicable?

  • Are the theories, references, or research frameworks used relevant?

  • Are the sampling procedures, tools, materials, and analysis techniques well explained?

  • Are any new methods included, and if so, are they described in detail?

Results

  • Are the research results presented logically and clearly?

  • Is statistical analysis used appropriately? If a more relevant analysis is available, please suggest it.

Discussion and Conclusion

  • Are the discussion and conclusion consistent with the research results?

  • Are the results compared with previous studies?

  • Do the conclusions explain the research’s contribution and the direction of future research?

Tables and Figures

  • Do the tables and figures support the text and are they easy for readers to understand?

Writing Style

  • Is the article written in good, clear, and coherent English?

  • Is the article engaging to read?

  • Is the article focused on a single topic and systematically presented?

Perspective and Novelty

  • Does the article contain a unique perspective relevant to sustainable agriculture, including policy, technology, agricultural economics, natural resource management, food security, agroecology, and other innovations?

  • Do the original data, analysis, or policy insights offered enrich knowledge in this field?

References

  • Are the references appropriate, relevant, and up-to-date?

  • Has the article followed the applicable citation and reference style in JOAS?

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect plagiarism, notify the editor with details.

  • Data Fraud: If you suspect that the data is invalid or fabricated, report this to the editor.

Additional Notes

  • All review results are confidential.

  • If you wish to discuss the article with colleagues, please inform the editor first.

  • Do not contact the author directly.

Writing the Review

Please write your review in two sections:

For the Editor:
This section includes notes that are only visible to the editor (e.g., potential ethical concerns, conflicts of interest, or recommendations for rejection).

For the Author:
This section includes constructive and professional feedback to help the author improve the quality of the manuscript.

Please complete the review before the specified deadline and send it to the editorial office. Your recommendation will be very helpful for the editor in making a final decision.