Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS) greatly values the contributions of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. These guidelines outline the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and review criteria for reviewers participating in the journal's double-blind peer review process.

────────────────────────────────────────

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing that helps ensure the publication of accurate, ethical, original, and high-quality research.

The objectives of peer review are to:

  • Evaluate the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts.

  • Assess originality and novelty.

  • Improve manuscript clarity and quality through constructive feedback.

  • Identify methodological or ethical concerns.

  • Assist editors in making informed editorial decisions.

────────────────────────────────────────

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JATAFS follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process.

During peer review:

  • Reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

  • Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is mutually agreed upon in accordance with journal policy.

This process promotes impartiality and minimizes potential bias.

────────────────────────────────────────

3. Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should ensure that they:

  • Possess appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area.

  • Can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

  • Have no actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

  • Can maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.

If reviewers are unable to complete the review promptly, they should decline the invitation as soon as possible.

────────────────────────────────────────

4. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.

  • Discuss unpublished research outside the editorial process.

  • Copy, distribute, or retain manuscript content for personal use.

  • Use unpublished information for research, teaching, or commercial purposes.

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the review has been completed.

────────────────────────────────────────

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Examples include:

  • Financial relationships.

  • Employment.

  • Institutional affiliations.

  • Collaborative research.

  • Personal relationships.

  • Academic competition.

Where a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation to review.

────────────────────────────────────────

6. Timeliness

Timely peer review helps ensure efficient editorial processing.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept or decline invitations promptly.

  • Complete reviews within the requested deadline.

  • Inform the Editorial Office immediately if unexpected delays occur.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the Editorial Office before the review deadline.

────────────────────────────────────────

7. Objectivity

Reviews should be:

  • Fair.

  • Objective.

  • Evidence-based.

  • Respectful.

  • Constructive.

Comments should focus on improving the manuscript rather than criticizing the authors.

Personal remarks or inappropriate language are unacceptable.

────────────────────────────────────────

8. Scientific Evaluation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript demonstrates:

  • Originality.

  • Scientific significance.

  • Clinical relevance.

  • Appropriate methodology.

  • Accurate statistical analysis.

  • Logical interpretation of results.

  • Valid conclusions.

  • Adequate literature review.

  • Ethical compliance.

Recommendations should be supported by clear scientific reasoning.

────────────────────────────────────────

9. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should notify the editors if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate publication.

  • Data fabrication.

  • Data falsification.

  • Image manipulation.

  • Citation manipulation.

  • Unethical human or animal research.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Authorship concerns.

The Editorial Office will investigate concerns in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidance.

────────────────────────────────────────

10. Quality of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports should be:

  • Clear.

  • Detailed.

  • Professional.

  • Constructive.

  • Respectful.

  • Evidence-based.

Where revisions are recommended, reviewers should provide specific suggestions that assist authors in improving their manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations should be consistent with the comments provided in the report.

────────────────────────────────────────

11. Detailed Review Criteria

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects:

Originality

  • Does the manuscript present novel findings?

  • Does it contribute new knowledge to the field?

  • Is the research sufficiently innovative?

Scientific Quality

  • Is the study scientifically sound?

  • Are the objectives clearly defined?

  • Is the research question adequately addressed?

Methodology

  • Is the study design appropriate?

  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail?

  • Can the study be reproduced?

Statistical Analysis

  • Are appropriate statistical methods used?

  • Are the analyses correctly interpreted?

  • Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Results

  • Are the findings presented clearly?

  • Do the figures and tables accurately represent the results?

  • Are the results internally consistent?

Discussion

  • Are the findings interpreted appropriately?

  • Are limitations adequately discussed?

  • Are conclusions supported by the evidence?

References

  • Are the references current and relevant?

  • Has important literature been cited?

  • Is there evidence of excessive self-citation or citation manipulation?

────────────────────────────────────────

12. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Confidentiality

To protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewers must not upload manuscript content, figures, datasets, reviewer reports, or unpublished research into publicly accessible Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems or third-party platforms without prior authorization from the journal.

Reviewers may use AI-assisted tools only for limited language or grammar support, provided that:

  • Manuscript confidentiality is fully protected.

  • No confidential information is disclosed.

  • The review remains the independent work of the reviewer.

AI systems must not be used to generate scientific judgments or peer review recommendations.

────────────────────────────────────────

13. Statistical and Methodological Assessment

For manuscripts involving advanced statistical methods, artificial intelligence, machine learning, clinical trials, or complex computational analyses, reviewers should evaluate whether:

  • Statistical methods are appropriate.

  • Sample size is justified.

  • Outcome measures are clearly defined.

  • Validation methods are adequate.

  • AI models are appropriately trained and evaluated.

  • Performance metrics are correctly reported.

  • Limitations are acknowledged.

Where necessary, reviewers may recommend an additional statistical or methodological review.

────────────────────────────────────────

14. Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Recommendations should be based on scientific merit and supported by detailed comments.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

────────────────────────────────────────

15. Review of Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing revised manuscripts, reviewers should:

  • Assess whether previous comments have been adequately addressed.

  • Evaluate the quality of revisions.

  • Identify any remaining scientific concerns.

  • Avoid introducing substantial new criticisms unless they arise from the revised content.

Reviewers should continue to provide constructive and objective feedback throughout the revision process.

────────────────────────────────────────

16. Reviewer Recognition

JATAFS appreciates the valuable contributions of its reviewers.

Subject to journal policy, reviewers may receive:

  • Certificates of Peer Review.

  • Annual acknowledgement on the journal website.

  • Recognition through reviewer profile services where applicable and with reviewer consent.

  • Invitations to join the Editorial Board based on sustained contributions and expertise.

Reviewer confidentiality will always be respected.

────────────────────────────────────────

17. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain professionalism.

  • Demonstrate fairness and impartiality.

  • Respect confidentiality.

  • Communicate respectfully.

  • Provide evidence-based recommendations.

  • Complete reviews responsibly and within agreed timelines.

Inappropriate, discriminatory, or offensive comments are not acceptable and may result in removal from the journal's reviewer database.

────────────────────────────────────────

18. Updating Reviewer Expertise

Reviewers are encouraged to keep their reviewer profiles current by updating:

  • Areas of expertise.

  • Institutional affiliation.

  • Contact information.

  • ORCID iD (recommended).

  • Research interests.

  • Recent publications.

Accurate reviewer information helps ensure appropriate manuscript assignments.

────────────────────────────────────────

19. Withdrawal from the Review Process

If a reviewer is unable to complete a review after accepting the invitation due to unforeseen circumstances, they should notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Whenever possible, reviewers should provide sufficient notice to allow the journal to assign an alternative reviewer without unnecessary delays.

────────────────────────────────────────

20. Contact Information

Questions regarding reviewer responsibilities, peer review procedures, or reviewer invitations may be directed to:

Editorial Office
Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS)
Novadex Publications

Email: editor@novadexpub.com

────────────────────────────────────────

21. Commitment to High-Quality Peer Review

The Journal of Agricultural Technology and Food Systems (JATAFS) recognizes that peer reviewers are essential partners in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publishing.

By providing fair, objective, timely, and constructive evaluations, reviewers contribute significantly to the advancement of artificial intelligence, integrative medicine, healthcare, and biomedical sciences.

JATAFS sincerely thanks all reviewers for their expertise, professionalism, and commitment to supporting rigorous and ethical scientific communication.