Iranian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics- Reviewers Section
Guidelines for Reviewers
|Clear images and colors
Guidelines for Reviewers
The editorial board of the IJARE appreciate you for accepting to be a reviewer for this journal. If the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise and if you have time to review the paper before the deadline, please see the Author Guidelines page to see which points authors are expected to observe before sending their manuscripts to IJARE for evaluation. Clearly, reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially and the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party.
In conducting the review, please consider the following criteria: Originality, Structure, Presentation (langue), and Ethical Issues.
In evaluating the originality, it is recommended to consider the following questions:
a) Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
b) Does it add much to the existing knowledge?
c) Is the research question an important one?
d) Is it above of the average of papers in this field?
In evaluating the structure of the article the considering the following questions are suggested:
a) Is the article clearly laid out?
b) Are all the key elements including title, abstract and keywords, introduction, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, references, acknowledgement present?
Obviously, Title clearly should describe and summarize the article. Abstract must reflect the content of the article within limitation set by the journal (200 words).
To evaluate the introduction section the following questions may be helpful:
a) Does it accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve, and clearly state the problem being investigated?
b) Could the author(s) sufficiently, introduce the topic, identify a gap, and occupy the gap by stating the research questions, aims, and hypotheses?
c) Are the sources cited recent?
d) Are citations and quotations accurate?
In evaluating the methodology the following question usually can be helpful:
a) Does the author present appropriately the conceptual framework for answering the question posed?
b) Is (are) the method(s) suggested suitable for answering the question posed?
c) Does the author accurately explain how the data were collected and was the sampling appropriate?
d) Does the author provide sufficient information for you to replicate the research?
e) Has the author been precise in describing measurements?
In evaluating the result and discussion section, it is recommended to consider the following questions:
a) Does the author explain explicitly and clearly what they discovered in the research?
b) Is the manuscript clearly laid out in a logical sequence?
c) Has the analyses appropriately been conducted?
d) Are the statistics correct and appropriately reported? If not, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
e) Are the abbreviations and symbols correct?
f) Have the correct type face, symbols, and punctuation been used?
g) Have the authors provided support from other sources?
h) Do the authors provide acceptable justification for their findings?
i) Have the authors made acceptable attempts to describe the probable sources of their findings?
In evaluating the conclusion section, the following questions may be considered:
a) Are the claims in this section supported by the results?
b) Have the authors indicated reasonably how the results relate to expectations and to earlier researches?
c) Does the conclusion explain the contribution to the existing body of scientific knowledge?
d) Have the authors made any reasonable suggestions or recommendations?
In evaluating the References section, the following questions might be considered:
a) Are the references in alphabetical order?
b) Are the references in IJARE style?
c) Is there any reference which has not been cited and/or any citation which has not been referenced?
In evaluating the quality of presentation, the following items is recommended to be considered:
a) Do the figures describe the data accurately and are they consistent?
b) Do the figures and tables inform the reader?
c) Are they captioned correctly?
d) Does the overall appearance of the paper look natural to a native speaker?
Note: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, you do not need to correct the English. You may wish to bring it to the attention of the editor.
If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible. If you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor.
Communicating Your Report to the Editor
Once you have completed your evaluation of the article the next step is to write up your report. In your report, you will provide the editor with an overview of your remarks.
The report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points outlined in the preceding section. Please note that commentary should be constructive.
You may want to use the 'Track Changes' and 'Commenting' options from Microsoft Word to indicate your points in the manuscript. You may also use line-number referencing and give examples of the areas of the paper that require revision. Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. It would be very helpful if you explain and support your judgment so that both editors and authors be better able to understand the basis of the comments. It would be very useful if you indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or reflected by data.
When you make a recommendation regarding an article, it is worth considering the following categories for classifying the article:
In case you decide the article requires revision, clearly identify what revision is required.
Topic URL in Iranian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics website:
Back to content primary page