Reviewer's guide

Dear reviewer,

The Editorial Board thanks you for agreeing to act as a reviewer for Journal of Central European Agriculture (JCEA).

The quality of the journal relies on the expertise of the reviewers and their reports, and we highly appreciate your time and effort.

Before you start

• Before accepting the review request, please consider if you have enough time to finish the review in time.
• By agreeing to perform the review, you declare that you do not have any conflict of interest or competing financial interests with either the author/s or funder/s of their research
  • direct personal relationships or professional relationships should be reported to corresponding editor.
• All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• The reviewers remain anonymous unless both the reviewer and the Editor agree otherwise.
• Before writing your review, you may find it helpful to browse the Instructions for Authors.

Writing a review report

General recommendations:

• be objective and constructive in your reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript,
  • do not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors' work that is mentioned in the manuscript,
• ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors;
  • most feedback should be put in the report for the authors,
• remember it is the authors' paper and not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear
  • suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important
• be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect,
• Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).
• If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the corresponding editor, providing as much detail as possible. Visit the COPE guidelines for more information.
• Since peer review is confidential, please do not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved.
  • This applies both during and after the publication process.

Questions to have in mind when preparing a review report:

• Does the manuscript fit the scope of JCEA?
• Would the manuscript be of interest to the readership of the journal?
• Does the manuscript help to expand or further research in this subject area?
• Does it significantly build on (the author’s) previous work?
• Do you feel that the significance and potential impact of a manuscript is high or low?
• Is the manuscript complete? Is there an abstract or summary of the work undertaken as well as a concluding section?
• Is the methodology presented in the manuscript and any analysis provided both accurate and properly conducted?
• Are all relevant accompanying data, citations, or references given by the author?
• Should it be shortened and reconsidered in another form?

Reviewer’s remarks to the authors:

Please provide comments and suggestions constructive and useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the manuscript. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the manuscript, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection.

Recommendation to the corresponding editor:

Accept – if the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.

Minor revision – if the manuscript will be ready for publication after light revisions. Please list the revisions you would recommend the author makes.

Major revision – if the manuscript would benefit from substantial changes such as expanded data analysis, widening of the literature review, or rewriting sections of the text.

Reject – if the manuscript is not suitable for publication with this journal or if the revisions that would need to be undertaken are too fundamental for the submission to continue being considered in its current form.

Online manuscript review

Reviewers must submit their comments via our online submission system by following the link provided in the invitation email from the editor.