Ethical Guidelines for the Reviewers

The Journal of Agricultural Innovation and Sustainability (JAIS) recognizes that the peer review process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of the research published in the journal. Their evaluations assist the Editor in making editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

To maintain high ethical and professional standards, all reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical principles, consistent with the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan and international publication ethics standards.

1. Suitability and Promptness

Reviewers should:

  • Inform the Editor immediately if they lack the subject expertise necessary to evaluate a manuscript.

  • Accept an assignment only if they can complete the review promptly and within the agreed timeframe.

  • Notify the Editor promptly if delays are unavoidable and propose a revised submission date.

  • Avoid unnecessary delays in the review process, such as requesting irrelevant additional data or postponing submission without valid reason.

2. Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with scholarly rigor and fairness.

  • Criticism should be constructive, focusing on the research content, not on personal aspects of the author(s).

  • All judgments and comments should be clear, supported by evidence, and understandable to both the Editor and author(s).

  • Reviewers must ensure that their decisions are based solely on the scientific merit of the paper and are not influenced by personal, financial, or intellectual biases.

3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and should not use or share any part of the manuscript for personal research without written permission from the Editor.

  • Any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, academic, political, or religious) must be disclosed to the Editor prior to the review.

  • If the reviewer feels unable to provide an impartial review, they must decline the review request and return the manuscript to the Editor immediately.

4. Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content and details of the manuscript.

  • Discussion of the manuscript’s content with others is prohibited unless authorized by the Editor.

  • Reviewers are ethically bound not to disclose or discuss any part of a research paper before its publication.

5. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the Editor if they suspect:

  • The manuscript plagiarizes or reproduces another person’s work without proper acknowledgment.

  • The data or results appear to be fabricated, falsified, or manipulated.

  • The study involves unethical research practices, such as inappropriate treatment of human or animal subjects.

  • The work is excessively similar to previously published research without appropriate citation or justification.

6. Originality and Contribution

When assessing originality, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the paper adds new knowledge or insights to existing research.

  • Whether the research objectives, questions, and hypotheses align with the stated goals of the study.

7. Structure and Presentation

Reviewers should evaluate and comment on:

  • The overall organization, clarity, and readability of the manuscript.

  • The appropriateness of the language, grammar, and expression used. If major language issues are identified, reviewers should recommend that the Editor advise the author(s) to seek professional editing.

  • The originality and clarity of figures, tables, and other illustrations. Any duplication should be reported.

  • The accuracy and consistency of the data presented in tables and figures with the text and results.

  • The appropriateness and correctness of statistical analyses.

  • The adequacy and precision of the Methodology section and whether the author(s) demonstrate a proper understanding of the methods used.

  • The logical connection between Data, Findings, and Discussion, and whether conclusions are supported by evidence.

  • Compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.

8. Review Report

  • Reviewers must provide detailed, well-reasoned comments in the designated “Comments” section of the review form.

  • It is helpful to include a brief summary of the manuscript and overall assessment at the beginning of the review report.

  • Specific weaknesses or areas for improvement should be clearly identified and explained.

  • Reviewers must indicate one of the following decisions, with justification:

    • Accept without revision

    • Accept with minor/major revisions

    • Reject

  • Reviewers may be asked to re-evaluate the revised manuscript to confirm that their recommended changes have been addressed.

  • The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor, who may consider reviewers’ opinions, seek additional reviews, or request further revisions before making a decision.