Guidelines for Reviewers

The purpose of these guidelines is to help reviewers understand their responsibilities and provide constructive critiques that will assist authors in improving their manuscripts, regardless of the outcome (acceptance, revision, or rejection).

Essential Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Critically evaluate each manuscript with respect to:

    • Its suitability for Journal of Soil, Plant and Environment (JSPAE)

    • Its novelty and general interest for the readership

    • The validity of the experiments and methods described

    • The statistical analyses (appropriate tests used, properly reported results)

    • The soundness of the conclusions

    • The adequacy and relevance of cited literature

  • Provide clear, constructive, and specific feedback that guides authors on how to improve their work.

  • Avoid unnecessary or excessive demands; remember that the normal revision timeframe is 1 month (or 3 months if time-consuming experiments are required).

  • Make a clear recommendation (accept, revise, or reject).

  • Comment on whether language and presentation hinder understanding.

  • Treat all manuscripts and related information as confidential.

  • Disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors.

  • State who contributed to the review, if applicable.

  • Report any suspected cases of scientific misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research).

  • For revised manuscripts, avoid raising new issues that could have been addressed in the original review, unless new data justify such concerns.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Please consider:

  1. Expertise – Does the manuscript match your area of expertise? If not, notify the editor promptly and suggest alternative reviewers if possible.

  2. Availability – Can you complete the review within the requested timeframe (normally 2 weeks)? If not, please decline or inform the editor immediately.

  3. Conflicts of Interest – Disclose any potential conflicts. These do not necessarily disqualify you, but transparency is essential.

Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts and related materials must be treated as strictly confidential.

  • Information must not be used for personal or financial gain.

  • After submitting your report, please delete or destroy all manuscript files.

  • Reviewers may cite the paper only after it is published.

Assessing Manuscripts

When reviewing, please evaluate and comment on:

a) Suitability

  • Is the study relevant to JSPAE’s scope and readership?

b) Novelty

  • Does the work make a significant, original contribution to the field?

  • Are strengths and weaknesses clear compared with existing knowledge?

c) Validity of Experiments

  • Are the methods appropriate and rigorously applied?

  • Are sample sizes, replicates, and error analyses reported?

  • Is statistical analysis correctly performed and interpreted?

d) Validity of Conclusions

  • Are conclusions supported by the data?

  • Have alternative explanations been considered?

e) Literature Review

  • Is the reference list appropriate and up to date?

  • Have important studies been overlooked?

f) Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript clearly written and well organized?

  • Do figures and tables effectively present the data?

  • Should the manuscript be shortened, expanded, or supplemented with additional figures?

g) Scientific Misconduct

  • Report any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data, image manipulation, or “salami” publishing (fragmented minimal reports).

Writing a Good Report

Your review should:

  • Identify key findings – Summarize goals, main results, strengths, and weaknesses in a few sentences.

  • Be comprehensive – Address all the main evaluation points listed above.

  • Be objective – Respect authors’ intellectual independence and avoid imposing unnecessary approaches.

  • Provide constructive criticism – Suggest practical improvements for weaknesses identified.

  • Be realistic – Do not demand excessive new experiments; remember the revision timeframe (1 month, or 3 months if major experiments are requested).

  • Remain professional – Even if a study is weak, avoid offensive language. Strong criticism should be factual and respectful.

  • Disclose conflicts of interest – State any relevant relationships.

  • Indicate contributors – If others assisted with the review, note this in confidential comments to the editor.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

  • Do not introduce new concerns unless new data raise legitimate issues.

  • Ensure that the manuscript reflects relevant new literature published during the revision period.

Editorial Process

  • Final Decision – Editors make the final decision, considering reviewer reports, author responses, and their own assessment.

  • Conflicting Reviews – If reviewer opinions diverge, editors may request further clarification or an additional review.

Reviewer Recognition

The Journal of Soil, Plant and Environment (JSPAE) values the contribution of its reviewers. To recognize your efforts, we provide:

  • Reviewer Certificates – Available upon request from the editorial office.

  • Reviewer Letters – Formal confirmation of your role in the peer review process, suitable for academic or institutional purposes.