Reviewer general guidelines
The peer reviewer process is a fundamental procedure for evaluating manuscripts submitted for scientific publication. This process involves the independent, subjective and critical evaluation of the manuscript by experts (peers) in the field, who are generally not members of the journal’s editorial board. Peer review is considered the golden rule of the scientific research process.
The peer review process of Scientia Agricolis Vita consist on the following steps:
- Reception of manuscripts: Submitted articles are received by the Editor in chief, who checks them for compliance with the journal’s criteria and for originality using plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate.
- Selection of reviewers: Accepted manuscripts are sent for review by referees who are experts in the field, selected by the associate Editors for each section. At this stage, reviewers receive the manuscript without names and affiliations.
- Peer review: The reviewers evaluate the manuscript within 21 days and send their verdict to the associate editor. Decisions can be: accepted without changes, accepted with minor corrections, accepted with major corrections, or rejected. If changes are required, authors must respond to each of the reviewers’ arguments.
- Final review: Once the authors have made the suggested corrections manuscripts is returned to the editor in chief, who decides whether it is acceptable.
- Acceptance: If the manuscript is accepted, the authors are notified and the manuscript is formatted according to the journal’s requirements. Once the galley proof is available it is sent to the authors for a thorough review and must be returned within five working days.
- Publication: One the article has been accepted and edited, it will be published in the SAV journal.
Importantly, to ensure transparency and impartiality, reviewers are required to inform the editor of any conflict of interest that may affect their opinion, and must decline to review certain manuscripts if there is a potential for bias. In addition, the peer review process used by Sientia Agricolis Vita is double-blind, meaning that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.
Per-review assists the editors in their decision to select suitable manuscripts for the journal, while at the same time assisting authors and editors in their efforts to improve articles.
Reviewer profile and responsibilities
Being invited to review a scientific article is an implicit recognition of your knowledge and professional skills. As a reviewer, you are entrusted with the responsibility of giving your opinion on the relevance of the article. The reviewers the main filtering the peer review process, which ensures higher quality of the manuscript, reduces the possibility of publishing fraudulent articles, avoids duplication and assesses the ethical aspects of the manuscript and its publication. It also contributes to an environment of quality and scientific neutrality, which enhances the credibility of the journal and what is published in it.
There are several advantages to being a reviewer for a peer-reviewed journal. These include:
- Contributing to the advancement of knowledge: by reviewing an article, you have the opportunity to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field by assessing the quality and relevance of the work presented.
- Improved reviewing skills: reviewing scientific articles can help develop critical and evaluative skills, which can be useful in improving the quality of one’s own research.
- Academic recognition: being a reviewed journal can be considered an academic achievement and can be positively valued in the curriculum vitae.
- Keeping up to date with the field: Reviewing scientific articles gives you access to the latest research and advances in your field, which can help you keep up to date.
- Connections in the academic community: reviewing scientific articles can help to establish connections and collaborations with other researchers and reviewers in the same field of study.
