Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to IJRAFS should be considered confidential documents. Reviewers should not distribute, copy, discuss or release the contents of a manuscript without prior permission from the editorial office.

Reviewers are not allowed to publish, use, or exploit unpublished information, data, methods, or findings derived from the review process for personal, professional, or research advantages.

Care must be taken with all materials used in connection with the review and their confidentiality is to be respected throughout the review process.

Objectivity & Feedback

The reviewers are expected to give unbiased and logical opinions on the manuscripts submitted. Comments must be concise, relevant and backed up by appropriate academic reasoning.

The reviewers are asked to write both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and specific suggestions for improvement. Personal comments or criticism against the authors and not the scholarly work are not appropriate.

The review should be based on the quality of the research, methodology, presentation and contribution of the text to the field of interest.

Conflict of Interest

A review or an editor's decision should not be influenced by a conflict of interest that reviewers perceive or actually have concerning an author's work. Conflicts of interest may arise from:

• Relationships with the authors (personal or professional).
• Ongoing or recent experiences with the authors.
• Relationships to institutions and/or professions.
• Interests of a financial/commercial nature.
• Face-to-face competition related to the research topic.
• Other factors that could effect the review.

A reviewer who is unable to make an impartial review should refuse the offer and notify the editorial office in a timely fashion.

Ethical Vigilance

The reviewer should inform the editorial office when he/she encounters potential ethical issues in a submitted manuscript. Such concerns may include:

• Plagiarism and/or significant similarity to prior publication.
• Falsification or fabrication of research results.
• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
• Misuses of research results and/or inappropriate presentation of results.
• Conflicts of interest were not disclosed.
• Questions about research with human subjects or animals.
• Lacking of proper ethical approval or permissions (when applicable).
• Ambiguities or possible misrepresentation in the presentation of research methods or results.

Any ethical issues should be reported to the editor in a confidential manner. Reviewers should not make definitive accusations and, where possible, give relevant explanations or supporting information.

Review Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide a recommendation to the editorial office, such as:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear and constructive comments. The final publication decision rests with the journal’s editorial team.

Timeliness & Review Model

Timeliness: Time to get review completed is the agreed upon time. The reviewer should notify the editorial office as soon as possible in case he or she is unable to provide the review in time.

Invitations for review to be accepted must have the reviewer's appropriate subject expertise and time to undertake a careful evaluation.

Review Model: IJRAFS operates on a peer-reviewed basis where initial screening is done by editors and further evaluation is carried out by qualified subject experts. Reviewers should keep the confidentiality of the review process and not engage in any action that could jeopardize the fairness or integrity of it.

If using anonymous review, reviewers should not try to determine the identity of the authors nor reveal themselves to the authors.