Guide to Reviewers

Peer Review Guidelines

  1. Introduction

The peer review process is a fundamental component of the International Journal of Agricultural and Home Economics Education (IJAHEE). As a peer-reviewed, open-access journal, IJAHEE is committed to maintaining academic rigour, ensuring the publication of high-quality, original scholarship in agricultural education, home economics, and related fields. These guidelines serve to inform reviewers of their roles, expectations, and ethical obligations.

  1. Purpose of Peer Review

The goal of peer review is to:

  • evaluate the quality, originality, and relevance of submitted manuscripts;
  • provide constructive feedback to authors for manuscript improvement;
  • support the editorial decision-making process (accept, revise, or reject); and
  • ensure integrity, accuracy, and contribution to the field.

In essence, peer review acts as a filter that protects the integrity of scholarly communication while enhancing manuscript quality through expert feedback.

 

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide an objective, fair, and timely review;
  • maintain confidentiality and not disclose manuscript content to third parties;
  • declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review;
  • assess manuscripts based on scholarly merit, not personal bias; and
  • suggest improvements clearly and respectfully.

To ensure blind review and confidentiality, reviewers are required to:

  1. Open the manuscript using Microsoft Word.
  2. Click on the Review tab.
  3. Under Track Changes, select “Change User Name”.
  4. Replace your name with “Reviewer” before inserting comments or edits.

This ensures that any annotations or tracked changes remain anonymous to the authors.

 

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose any part of the manuscript or discuss it with others without permission from the editor.

  1. Review Criteria

When evaluating manuscripts, reviewers should consider the following components in detail:

  1. Title and Abstract
  • Is the title accurate, concise, and reflective of the study's content?
  • Does the abstract, in 250 words, provide a balanced summary of the background, methods, results, and conclusions?
  • Does it highlight the significance or originality of the study?
  1. Originality and Relevance
  • Does the manuscript offer new insights, data, approaches, or pedagogical strategies?
  • Is the content appropriate for IJAHEE’s readership—particularly students, parents, educators, curriculum developers, policymakers, extension workers, and researchers?
  1. Introduction and Literature Review
  • Is the problem well-defined and grounded in current literature?
  • Are the research questions or hypotheses clearly articulated?
  • Does the literature review show critical engagement with relevant and recent sources?
  1. Methodology
  • Is the research design appropriate for the stated objectives?
  • Are the methods clearly described to ensure reproducibility?
  • Have ethical considerations (e.g., consent, anonymity, reliability) been addressed?
  • For empirical studies: Are sample size, data collection tools, and analysis procedures clearly explained?
  1. Results and Analysis
  • Are results presented logically and clearly, with adequate use of tables, charts, or figures?
  • Are statistical analyses appropriate, transparent, and accurately interpreted?
  • Are patterns, trends, and anomalies discussed?
  1. Discussion and Conclusion
  • Does the discussion interpret the findings in the context of the broader literature?
  • Are limitations acknowledged?
  • Do the conclusions logically stem from the findings and answer the research question?
  1. Writing Style and Organization
  • Is the manuscript written in clear, grammatically correct, and professional language?
  • Is the manuscript structured with coherent flow (e.g., Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion)?
  • Are terms, abbreviations, and acronyms well-defined?

 

  1. Review Report & Recommendations

Reviewers are expected to submit a comprehensive, timely, and evidence-based report with a clear recommendation to the editor, which may include:

  • Accept without Revisions – The manuscript meets all quality standards and is ready for publication.
  • Minor Revisions Required – The manuscript is sound but needs small changes (e.g., formatting, minor clarification).
  • Major Revisions Required – Substantive issues must be addressed (e.g., methodological concerns, missing analysis).
  • Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to fundamental flaws, lack of originality, or poor alignment with the journal’s scope.

Each decision should be justified with evidence-based reasoning and direct reference to the manuscript content.

 

  1. Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

As a reviewer, you must treat the manuscript as a privileged document. Do not share, distribute, or cite its content unless it is published. If you recognise the work of a colleague or detect possible plagiarism, contact the editorial office directly.

 

  1. Conflict of Interest

You should decline the review if:

  • You have collaborated with the author(s) in the past 3 years.
  • You work at the same institution as the author(s).
  • You have a personal or professional relationship that could bias your judgement.
  • You stand to gain financially or reputationally from the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.

Transparency in potential conflicts of interest maintains the integrity of the peer review process.

 

  1. Timeliness

Timely reviews are crucial for efficient editorial processing. We request that reviews be submitted within 4 to 8 weeks of accepting the invitation. If more time is needed or if you're unable to complete the review, notify the editorial office promptly so an alternate reviewer can be assigned.

 

  1. Recognition and Acknowledgment

We value and respect the time and intellectual labour of our reviewers. As a token of appreciation:

  • Reviewers will be acknowledged annually on our journal website unless anonymity is requested.
  • Formal certificates of review service can be issued upon request.
  • Exceptional reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board.

Your service supports academic excellence in a field that directly impacts education, sustainability, and rural livelihoods.

 

  1. How to Submit Your Review

Review reports can be:

  • Submitted directly via the IJAHEE online review platform (link).
  • Or sent by email to the Editor-in-Chief at: ijvocter@gmail.com

Reviewer’s Report Form

IJAHEE provides a standard reviewer’s report form. Reviewers are encouraged to:

  • Request it via email or
  • Download, fill, and submit the completed form alongside their comments. [Click here to download the IJAHEE Reviewer’s Report Form.] (link).

 

  1. Contact and Support

For assistance with the review process or technical issues, contact:

Editorial Office
 For further information or enquiries, please contact the Editor-in-Chief: