Reviewers Guidelines
Introduction
Peer review is an essential component of maintaining the quality, credibility, and academic integrity of research published in AgEcon Frontiers. Reviewers play a central role in ensuring that published research in agricultural economics, policy, and related fields meets the highest standards of originality, rigor, and relevance.
These guidelines are intended to support reviewers at every stage of the process i.e. before, during, and after review by clarifying expectations, ethical responsibilities, and the review structure adopted by the journal.
Serving as a reviewer for AgEcon Frontiers provides an opportunity to engage with cutting-edge research, contribute to the academic community, and strengthen one’s professional standing within the discipline of agricultural and resource economics.
The Purpose and Importance of Peer Review
Peer review ensures that manuscripts published in AgEcon Frontiers:
Present sound and well-documented research.
Offer original contributions to the existing body of knowledge.
Follow ethical research and reporting standards.
Demonstrate methodological rigor and relevance to agricultural economics, policy, and transformation.
The process also enhances scholarly communication by enabling authors to receive constructive feedback from experts, which improves the clarity, structure, and impact of their work.
For reviewers, participation in peer review helps:
Stay updated with emerging research trends and methods.
Build academic credibility and recognition as a subject expert.
Contribute to the improvement of research quality and publication ethics.
Develop critical thinking and analytical writing skills.
Understanding the Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to AgEcon Frontiers undergo a systematic multi-stage peer review process, beginning with initial screening by the editorial team and followed by formal review by independent experts.
Step 1: Initial Screening
Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor examines the manuscript for suitability, ensuring it aligns with the journal’s aims, scope, and formatting guidelines. Submissions that clearly do not meet the journal’s objectives may be desk rejected at this stage.
Step 2: Reviewer Selection
The handling editor selects up to three qualified reviewers with expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are chosen based on keywords, methodological familiarity, and publication experience.
Step 3: Review and Recommendation
Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript within 2–4 weeks. Each reviewer submits a detailed report addressing the originality, methodology, data analysis, ethical compliance, and clarity of presentation.
Step 4: Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
Accept – The paper is ready for publication after final checks.
Minor Revisions – The paper requires small corrections before acceptance.
Major Revisions – The paper needs substantial changes and will be re-evaluated.
Reject – The manuscript does not meet publication standards.
Step 5: Revision and Reassessment
If revisions are requested, the author resubmits a revised manuscript with a detailed response to reviewer comments. The editor may make a decision based on the revised submission or return it to the same reviewers for re-evaluation.
Peer Review Models at AgEcon Frontiers
Double-Blind Peer Review
AgEcon Frontiers primarily employs the double-blind review system. Under this model, both author and reviewer identities remain anonymous. This ensures fairness and reduces potential bias related to institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or reputation.
Open Peer Review (Optional)
In selected thematic issues or invited papers, AgEcon Frontiers may adopt an open peer review model—where authors and reviewers agree to disclose their identities. This approach promotes transparency, accountability, and scholarly dialogue, while still maintaining editorial independence.
Ethical Commitment
Regardless of the model used, reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, impartiality, and professionalism throughout the process.
Becoming a Reviewer
Scholars and professionals interested in joining the AgEcon Frontiers reviewer community are invited to register through the journal’s submission platform or contact the editorial office directly at journals@ageconfrontiers.com.
To facilitate proper reviewer matching:
Maintain an updated profile with your institutional affiliation, ORCID ID, keywords, and areas of expertise.
Indicate preferred research domains (e.g., agricultural policy, trade, rural development, food security, environmental economics, etc.).
Attach a short academic CV highlighting publications and reviewing experience.
Reviewers may also be nominated by editorial board members or recommended by senior colleagues. Early-career researchers are encouraged to participate under mentorship to gain experience in critical assessment and academic writing.
Reviewer Responsibilities
a) Objectivity and Impartiality
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript solely on its academic merit, without personal or institutional bias. Criticism should be constructive, and reviewers must avoid derogatory or dismissive language.
b) Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
c) Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within the designated timeframe. If an extension is needed, they should immediately inform the editor.
d) Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts, such as:
Personal or professional relationships with the author(s).
Financial or competitive interests related to the research.
Involvement in similar research that could affect neutrality.
e) Integrity and Ethics
If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, ethical misconduct, or significant overlap with published work, they should notify the editor confidentially.
f) Human Oversight in Reviews
The use of AI tools, automated summarizers, or large language models (LLMs) to generate review content is not permitted. Reviewers are responsible for their reports and must ensure that feedback is original, accurate, and human-authored.
Writing a Constructive Review
A well-prepared review should provide a balanced evaluation, recognizing both strengths and areas needing improvement. The following framework is recommended:
1. Summary of the Manuscript
Briefly restate the study’s purpose, methods, and major findings. This demonstrates that the reviewer has understood the paper and sets the context for detailed feedback.
2. Major Comments
Identify critical issues that must be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication, such as:
Insufficient or unclear methodology
Flawed data interpretation
Unsupported conclusions
Missing key literature
Provide clear, actionable suggestions for improvement rather than vague criticism.
3. Minor Comments
Include stylistic, formatting, or referencing issues that can enhance readability. These are not decisive for acceptance but help refine the manuscript.
4. Recommendation
Choose one of the following:
Accept
Minor Revisions
Major Revisions
Reject
The editor values reviewer recommendations, but final decisions are made considering all feedback and journal priorities.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should consider the following when assessing manuscripts:
Originality: Does the paper present novel ideas, data, or perspectives?
Relevance: Is the topic aligned with agricultural economics, policy, or development?
Methodology: Are research design, sampling, and analysis methods appropriate and clearly described?
Data Quality: Are data sources credible, sufficient, and transparently reported?
Results and Discussion: Are results logically presented and linked to objectives?
Policy Implications: Does the study contribute to understanding or improving agricultural policy?
Ethical Compliance: Are research ethics and integrity maintained?
Clarity and Structure: Is the paper well-organized and clearly written?
Ethical Expectations
AgEcon Frontiers follows the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers are required to:
Uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process.
Avoid personal, gender, or nationality-based bias.
Refrain from using unpublished data for personal research.
Alert editors of any suspected academic misconduct.
Reviewers should not contact authors directly; all communication must occur through the editorial office.
Confidentiality and Use of AI Tools
All materials reviewed are confidential and must not be shared, copied, or uploaded to any AI-powered or cloud-based system for assistance or editing.
AgEcon Frontiers strictly prohibits the use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard) to assess or summarize manuscripts, as these tools may inadvertently store data externally, compromising confidentiality. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, tone, and validity of their evaluations.
Reviewer Recognition and Benefits
AgEcon Frontiers deeply values the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining publication excellence. Reviewers are offered:
Official Certificates of Review upon request.
Annual acknowledgment on the journal’s website.
Eligibility for the Outstanding Reviewer Award, based on quality and timeliness of reviews.
Consideration for future membership on the Editorial Review Board.
Opportunity to gain professional visibility in the AgEcon scholarly network.
Reviewers also enjoy early exposure to innovative research, strengthening their understanding of new methodologies and trends in agricultural economics.
How to Review Effectively
Here are key recommendations for producing high-quality, professional reviews:
Read Thoroughly: Review the entire manuscript, including figures, tables, and appendices, before drafting comments.
Be Objective: Focus on evidence-based evaluation rather than personal preferences.
Be Specific: Suggest practical improvements (e.g., “Provide a robustness test for model X”) instead of general statements (“Improve analysis”).
Maintain a Supportive Tone: Frame comments constructively to encourage the author’s development.
Be Concise: Avoid overly lengthy or repetitive feedback.
Structure Your Review: Organize comments by section (Introduction, Methods, Results, etc.) for clarity.
Respect Confidentiality: Avoid sharing your review or discussing it outside the editorial system.
Review Outcomes and Revisions
After receiving reviewer reports, the editor consolidates feedback and communicates the decision to the author.
If revisions are requested:
Authors will respond to reviewer comments point by point.
Reviewers may be invited to assess the revised version to ensure that issues have been adequately addressed.
If the paper meets all standards, the editor proceeds with acceptance and publication.
Reviewers’ consistency and balanced judgment across multiple submissions help maintain the integrity and reputation of AgEcon Frontiers.
Handling Ethical or Professional Concerns
If reviewers encounter suspected misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or ethical non-compliance, they should promptly inform the editor, providing clear details or evidence.
The editorial office will then follow COPE guidelines to investigate the issue confidentially and fairly.
Reviewers should not attempt to verify misconduct independently or contact authors directly.
The Value of Reviewing
Peer reviewing is not only a professional service but also a scholarly responsibility. By acting as a reviewer, you:
Strengthen global agricultural and economic research standards.
Contribute to knowledge that influences sustainable policy decisions.
Support young researchers by offering mentorship through constructive feedback.
Enhance your professional reputation and academic visibility.
Your insights help shape the evolution of the field and maintain the quality and trustworthiness of published research.
Reviewer Support and Communication
The editorial office is committed to supporting reviewers throughout the process. For any questions, deadline extensions, or ethical concerns, please contact:
📧 journals@ageconfrontiers.com
🌐 www.ageconfrontiers.com
We welcome feedback on how we can improve the peer review experience.
Peer review at AgEcon Frontiers is founded on fairness, transparency, and scholarly excellence. Reviewers are vital partners in our mission to advance research that informs policy, supports economic development, and fosters sustainable agricultural transformation.
By adhering to these guidelines, reviewers contribute to upholding the highest ethical and academic standards of publication and to the global advancement of agricultural and resource economics.