Tikrit Journal for Agricultural Sciences

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

Guide for Authors

Authorship

Journal Funding Sources

Allegations of Misconduct

Copyright and licensing

Abstracting & Indexing

The Time Period of Reviewing Process

Open Access Policy

Submissions

Privacy Statement

About Journal

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

News

For Reviewers

Tikrit Journal for Agricultural Sciences (TJAS)

Reviewing a manuscript written by fellow scientists is both an honor and a responsibility. It is, however, a time-consuming task. The Editorial Board, authors, and readership of TJAS greatly appreciate reviewers’ willingness to dedicate their time and expertise to this essential process.

TJAS follows a double-blind peer-review process that is fair, objective, and designed to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific articles. To maintain these standards, TJAS relies on reviewers who can provide constructive, insightful, and timely feedback (within approximately three weeks) on submitted manuscripts.

Maintaining TJAS as a journal of scientific excellence depends on reviewers who demonstrate both subject expertise and impartial judgment in their evaluations.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities ( click here ) 

If you are invited by the Editor-in-Chief of TJAS to review a manuscript, please observe the following responsibilities:

  • Review the manuscript critically but constructively, providing detailed comments to help authors improve their work.

  • Review multiple revisions of the same manuscript if required.

  • Provide complete review reports within the established deadline (around three weeks).

  • Make a clear recommendation to the editor about the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest related to the authors or the content before reviewing.

  • Report any suspected research misconduct or ethical issues.

  • Suggest alternative reviewers if you are unable to review.

  • Treat the manuscript as strictly confidential.

  • Do not use any information from the manuscript for personal benefit.

  • Do not communicate directly with the authors, even if their identities become known.

  • Do not identify yourself as a reviewer to the authors.

  • Do not forward the manuscript to another reviewer without the editor’s permission.

  • Ensure the manuscript represents original, high-quality work.

  • Notify the editor if the manuscript is under consideration elsewhere, to your knowledge.

  • Write the review report in English only.

  • Optionally, you may be invited to author a commentary related to the reviewed manuscript.

What to Check While Reviewing a Manuscript

When reviewing, please evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Novelty and originality

  • Scientific validity and reliability

  • Contribution to the field and advancement of knowledge

  • Ethical considerations and compliance

  • Structure, clarity, and adherence to the journal’s author guidelines

  • Appropriateness and accuracy of references

  • Grammar, spelling, and punctuation

  • Evidence of any possible scientific misconduct

 How to peer review for TJAS

The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and contain more than a few brief sentences. TJAS does not require a specific report structure; a suggested format is Summary Major issues Minor issues. We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments by the editor-in-chief.
While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include the following:
- Are the research questions valid? Is the sample size sufficient?
- Is ethical approval and/or consent necessary, and was the research ethical?
- Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
- Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
- Is the reporting of the methods, including any equipment and materials, sufficiently detailed that the research might be reproduced? Are any statistical tests used appropriately and correctly reported?
- Are the figures and tables clear and accurately represent the results?
- Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed, and have those results been compared to current ones?
- Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim or too many citations to the authors'' own articles?
- Do the results support the conclusions?
- Are the limitations of the research acknowledged?
- Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results without spin?
- Is the language clear and understandable?
 
To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact TJAS if they cannot meet the deadline to arrange an alternative date. We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the submission's scientific aspects, including the methodology's soundness and whether the results can support the conclusions. Comments may also be given on novelty and the potential impact of the work. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
1- Accepted
2- Minor Revision
3- Major Revision
4- Reject
5- Unable to Review