Reviewer Guidelines

Invitation to Review

LJAAS deeply appreciates expert reviewing of a number experts who can be trusted to comment, check and do a peer-review based on a certain standard of the LJAAS. JLAAS has a certain stand that are aimed to continue the quality of the manuscript and to provide recommendations to the editor whether a manuscript should be accepted, require revision, or should be rejected.

Provisional Reviewers use

  • Accept or decline any invitation sent to you either based on its manuscript title and abstract.
  • Suggest alternative reviewers if needed (a common requirement).
  • Suggest remedial instructions as soon as possible in case issues have to require to provide a comprehensive report.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Should reviewers have known, potential conflicts of interest and consult the journal Editorial Office if they are unsure. Responding ourselves to a potential conflict of learning. Possible conflicts of interest include those are not limited to:

• Collaboration with the co-author/s or of the authors.
• Prior joint or collaborative works in the past years.
• Close personal relationship, employer, or authority.
• Financial grants in recent 36-month publication.
• Non-financial conflicts intellectual, religious, etc.).

Lalibela Journal of Agriculture and Applied Sciences (LJAAS) is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly content. Please check with the Editor-in-Chief if you have a certain case or concerns. Any reviewer/s who reveals a personal interest has to immediately refuse the offer of reviewing the manuscript (or report the Editorial Office to case). Due necessity/Code of Conduct, any review can be reassigned for a clear guidance revision.

Reviewers are also encouraged to read the best practice guidelines on the ethical Guidelines for PEER Reviewers by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). LJAAS is committed to maximizing the highest standard of trust and transparency in maintaining the quality of our reviewing processes.

General Guidelines for Assessment

1.Strict Confidentiality: Read the manuscript as a strict secret document. Do not share copies or reveal your identity/due diligence, do not circulate or re-distribute.
2.Unbiased Assessment: Look through the work, based on merit rather than author identity or affiliation.
3.Review Timelines: Commit to review-bound processes and promptly release the review in due dates.
4.Constructive Feedback: Provide important comments on strengths/weaknesses and support with expert reasons.
5.Clarity and Structure: Assess layout details, references, and wording to guarantee the best writing standard.
6.Methodology and Validity: Examine research design, data collection, and statistical accuracy.
7.Policy Adherence: Evaluate if the work addresses mission and advancement of the institution's aims.
8.Ethical Standards: Assess if compliance standards like data ethics/consent are identified proper.
9.Clear Recommendations: Suggest proper decisions: Please check whether it will realize mutual comments.
10.Thoughtful Comment: State reasons for responsibility and provide guidance for substantive based.
11.Evaluate recommendations: substantiate the final decision clearly to avoid editorial concerns in the office.
12.Avoid bias: stay independent to prevent any distribution of research bias in style or structure.

Review Report Content

Your review should include the following:

  • A brief summary: A summary of overview / main findings from the paper, demonstrates broad understanding.
  • General/major comments: The structure, draft, logic and validation of methods, and data findings, discussion, etc.
  • Location-specific comments: line numbers references to supplement of revision attempt, for typo/terminology adjustments.
  • Specific comments: Checking if all abbreviations are used properly, format, layout, format for references and text.
Rating Criteria
 

Novelty & Scope

Are the content original and ambitions? Novelty with scientific depth with matters or appropriate scope for corresponding journal.

Scientific Soundness

Solid design, meaningful integration of evidence fields, testing approach, data analysis robust, scientific strictness.

Significance & Quality

Accurate data, problems solved, clarity of layout, theoretical/practical approach, standards for practical presentation.

Interest & Merit

Find bigger value/benefit to readership group, informative, practical utility, contribution to journal profile.

English languages

Is the English language correctness, clear, and demonstrates satisfaction to format, structure and grammar.

Final Recommendation Categories

Accept in Present Form

The paper may be accepted without any further changes.

Accept after Minor Revisions

Acceptance after changes/correction based on initial evaluator decisions.

Reconsider after Major Revisions

Expanded new proofs by total analysis, author up to values 15 days.

Reject

Authors have broken original standards or lack of substantive data.

Review and amendments

This policy will be periodically reviewed and may be amended in alignment with the evolving nature and content of sport science publishing author will be notified if any changes.