Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for reviewing for AgroEnvironmental Sustainability. Reviewers help the editors decide which work to publish, and their comments help authors improve their papers. These guidelines explain what the journal asks of its reviewers.

On this page

Peer Review Process

The journal uses single-blind peer review: reviewers see the authors' names and affiliations, but the authors are not told who reviewed their work. Before review, every manuscript is checked by the editorial office for completeness and similarity, and by the Editor-in-Chief or a section editor for scope and basic quality. Manuscripts that pass these checks are sent to at least two independent reviewers.

Authors may suggest reviewers, but the editor decides whom to invite, and at least one reviewer is always chosen independently of the authors' suggestions. Invitations and reviews are managed through the journal's online system; the handling editor creates a reviewer account if you do not already have one.

The editor makes the decision on the manuscript after reading the reviewer reports and the manuscript itself. Reviewers are not expected to agree, and the decision is not a vote count. After the decision, reviewers can see the other reports and the editor's decision letter in the system.

Before Accepting an Invitation

  • Expertise: Accept only if the manuscript is within your area of expertise, or if you can review the parts you know well and tell the editor which parts you could not assess.
  • Time: Accept only if you can return the report by the deadline given in the invitation. If you need more time, ask the editor early.
  • Conflicts of interest: Decline if you have collaborated with any of the authors in the last three years, work at the same institution, have a personal relationship with them, have a financial interest in the outcome, or are working on a closely competing study. See the Conflict of Interest Policy. If you are unsure, ask the editor.

Publication and Review Ethics

  • Confidentiality: The manuscript and all material related to it are confidential. Do not share them, discuss them with others, or use any of the unpublished information in your own work. If you want to involve a colleague or student in the review, ask the editor first and give their name.
  • AI tools: Do not upload the manuscript or any part of it into generative AI tools, and do not use such tools to write your report. See the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.
  • Objectivity: Judge the work on its scientific merits. Personal criticism of the authors is not appropriate.
  • Citations: Suggest additional references only where they are clearly needed. Do not ask authors to cite your own work, or that of colleagues, unless it is directly relevant; editors will remove such requests from reports.
  • Misconduct: If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, duplicate publication, or an ethical problem, tell the editor in the confidential comments. These cases are handled under the Research Integrity Issues Policy. Do not contact the authors directly.
  • Anonymity: Do not contact the authors, and do not include your name or other identifying information in the comments to authors.

Writing the Report

A useful report begins with a short summary of the manuscript and its main claims in your own words, then gives an overall assessment followed by specific comments. When evaluating the manuscript, consider:

  • Is the research question clear, and is it relevant to the scope of the journal?
  • Is the work original? Has similar work been reported elsewhere, and does the manuscript acknowledge it?
  • Are the methods appropriate and described in enough detail for the work to be repeated, including the study site, sampling, instruments, and statistical analysis?
  • Do the data support the conclusions? Are the statistics suitable and correctly reported?
  • Are the tables and figures clear, necessary, and consistent with the text?
  • Is the literature cited current, relevant, and fairly represented?
  • Does the Statement of Sustainability describe the paper's contribution accurately?
  • Are ethical approvals, conflicts of interest, and data availability properly declared?

Number your comments so that the authors can respond to each one, and separate major concerns from minor corrections. You do not need to correct the language in detail, but please say if the English is unclear enough to hide the meaning. End with one of the recommendations offered in the system (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject), and use the confidential comments to the editor for anything you do not want the authors to see.

Resources

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Principles. Reviewers may find these documents useful:

Reviewer Rewards

As thanks for their work, reviewers who have completed a review for the journal in the past twelve months may receive a 20% discount on the article processing charge (APC) for one of their own accepted manuscripts per year. The discount has no influence on how that manuscript is reviewed or decided. To request it, email info@sagens.org with the details of the manuscript you reviewed and of your accepted manuscript. The editorial office will send a discount code that can be used at https://www.sagens.org/payment.

Reviewers can also request a certificate for each completed review, and may record their reviews on their Web of Science Reviewer Recognition profile. Please write to info@sagens.org if you have any questions about reviewing for the journal.

Last updated: