Reviewer Guidelines

1. General Principles and Objectives

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP) is committed to maintaining scientific quality, editorial integrity, transparency, and accountability through a rigorous and responsible peer-review process. Peer review serves as an essential mechanism for evaluating the originality, relevance, methodological soundness, reliability, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts within agricultural sciences and related disciplines.
JIIP adopts the ethical principles established in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasise responsible reviewer conduct, professional competence, impartial assessment, confidentiality, transparency, and accountability throughout the manuscript evaluation process.
The journal also follows the COPE Core Practice on Peer Review Processes, which encourages journals to establish transparent review procedures, appropriate reviewer responsibilities, and effective mechanisms for maintaining the integrity of scholarly evaluation.
Reviewers are expected to provide independent, constructive, evidence-based assessments that assist editors in making appropriate publication decisions and help authors improve the scientific quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

2. Peer Review System and Reviewer Selection

JIIP implements a blind peer-review process as described in its Publication Ethics Policy. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by at least two reviewers selected according to their expertise and the scientific characteristics of the manuscript.
The journal selects reviewers based on their disciplinary competence, research experience, methodological knowledge, professional integrity, and ability to provide an objective assessment within an appropriate timeframe.
The COPE-supported Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, Principle 8 on Peer Review recommend that journals clearly describe their review model, identify who conducts reviews, explain how reviewer identities are protected, and specify how final editorial decisions are made.
Reviewers must comply with the anonymity and confidentiality requirements communicated by the editorial office. JIIP should identify its specific blind-review model consistently across its Reviewer Guidelines, Peer Review Policy, and Publication Ethics pages.
Reviewer recommendations provide expert advice to the editorial team. The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision.

3. Reviewer Qualifications and Professional Responsibilities

Reviewers must possess sufficient knowledge and research experience to evaluate the subject matter, research design, methodology, analytical procedures, and scientific interpretation of the assigned manuscript.
Potential reviewers should provide accurate information concerning their academic qualifications, research expertise, institutional affiliations, professional experience, and contact details. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Professional Responsibility recommend accepting review invitations only when the reviewer possesses the necessary expertise and can provide an impartial assessment.
Reviewers should inform the editorial office when a manuscript contains substantial scientific or methodological components outside their expertise. The journal may appoint additional reviewers with complementary competencies when necessary.
Reviewers must not misrepresent their academic qualifications, professional identity, research experience, or institutional affiliation. Impersonation and the submission of reviews under a false identity constitute serious violations of scholarly publication ethics.

4. Acceptance of Review Invitations and Timeliness

Invited reviewers should respond to review invitations promptly and indicate whether they possess the necessary expertise, have sufficient time to complete the assessment, and are free from competing interests that could compromise their independence.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Timeliness recommend that reviewers accept invitations only when they can complete the review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe and promptly notify the journal if circumstances prevent timely completion.
Reviewers who cannot complete an assessment within the agreed period should contact the editorial office immediately and request an extension where appropriate.
When declining an invitation, reviewers may recommend alternative experts whose qualifications are relevant to the manuscript. Such recommendations must be based on professional competence rather than personal relationships or a desire to influence the editorial outcome.

5. Confidentiality of Manuscripts and Review Materials

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential scholarly documents. Reviewers must protect unpublished research findings, original data, research methods, figures, tables, supplementary files, author information, and editorial correspondence.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Confidentiality prohibit reviewers from exploiting information obtained during peer review for personal advantage or to disadvantage other researchers.
Reviewers must not distribute, reproduce, publicly discuss, or disclose manuscript contents to unauthorised individuals. They must not use unpublished findings for their own research, commercial activities, professional competition, or other purposes unrelated to the authorised review.
Reviewers must not contact manuscript authors directly concerning a submission unless the editorial office has expressly authorised such communication.
Reviewers wishing to involve students, research assistants, junior researchers, or other colleagues in an evaluation must obtain prior permission from the editor. Any authorised assistance must be disclosed so that the journal can maintain accurate reviewer records.

6. Conflicts of Interest and Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, intellectual, or collaborative interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment of a manuscript.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Competing Interests advise reviewers not to accept assignments when significant relationships with authors, such as current employment at the same institution or recent close collaboration, supervision, or joint research funding, may compromise their independence.
Potential competing interests may include financial relationships with agricultural enterprises, research funding arrangements, commercial interests involving products under investigation, academic competition, personal relationships, and institutional affiliations.
Reviewers must notify the editor promptly when a potential conflict becomes apparent before or during the review process. The editor will determine whether the reviewer may continue or whether the manuscript should be reassigned.
Reviewers must not allow an author's institutional affiliation, academic seniority, nationality, personal identity, or professional reputation to influence their scientific judgement.

7. Objectivity, Fairness, and Professional Conduct

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, respectfully, and constructively. Assessments must be based on scientific evidence, methodological adequacy, research significance, and the clarity of the reported findings.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Preparing a Report recommend constructive criticism supported by specific reasoning and appropriate references, while discouraging hostile language, personal attacks, unsupported accusations, and discriminatory judgements.
Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of each manuscript and explain how identified limitations affect the reliability, originality, or scientific contribution of the study.
Recommendations for revision must be proportionate to the manuscript's research objectives and should distinguish essential scientific corrections from optional improvements.
Reviewers must not impose personal writing preferences, unnecessary additional experiments, irrelevant theoretical perspectives, or unjustified analytical requirements that fall outside the reasonable scope of the manuscript.

8. Scientific Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess manuscripts systematically using scientific criteria appropriate to the submitted research design and the journal's scope. The review should consider the manuscript's originality, relevance, research question, methodological quality, data reliability, analytical procedures, discussion, conclusions, references, and overall scholarly contribution.
Originality and Scientific Contribution. Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript addresses a meaningful research problem, contributes new empirical findings or relevant scientific interpretation, and explains its relationship to existing agricultural knowledge.
Research Objectives and Literature Review. Reviewers should evaluate whether the research objectives are clear, the problem is sufficiently justified, and relevant literature provides an adequate foundation for the study.
Research Design and Methodology. Reviewers should assess the appropriateness of experimental or observational designs, sampling procedures, research instruments, treatment structures, control groups, replication, and methodological descriptions where applicable.
Data Quality and Statistical Analysis. Reviewers should examine whether the reported data support the research questions and whether the analytical methods, statistical assumptions, tests, performance indicators, and interpretation are scientifically appropriate.
Results and Discussion. Reviewers should determine whether results are reported accurately, tables and figures are consistent with the text, and the discussion critically interprets the findings in relation to existing research.
Conclusions and Research Implications. Reviewers should assess whether conclusions follow logically from the results and whether practical recommendations are supported by the available evidence.
These assessment criteria support the evidence-based and constructive review principles described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers concerning the preparation of review reports.

9. Specific Evaluation of Agricultural Research

For agronomic and agricultural field experiments, reviewers should examine treatment allocation, experimental design, replication, environmental conditions, crop management procedures, measurement accuracy, and the suitability of statistical analysis.
For soil science, seed technology, plant protection, and laboratory-based studies, reviewers should evaluate sampling methods, analytical procedures, equipment calibration where relevant, experimental controls, and the reproducibility of laboratory measurements.
For agribusiness, agricultural economics, and agricultural extension research, reviewers should evaluate the sampling framework, measurement instruments, validity of indicators, appropriateness of economic or statistical models, and consistency between empirical findings and proposed policy or management implications.
For food technology, agricultural processing, animal husbandry, and agricultural mechanisation, reviewers should examine the scientific appropriateness of processing parameters, experimental procedures, quality measurements, performance assessments, and conclusions.
Reviewers should consider relevant reporting standards, established disciplinary methods, and potential methodological limitations. They should avoid applying evaluation criteria that are inappropriate for the manuscript's scientific design.

10. Research Ethics, Data Integrity, and Reproducibility

Reviewers should identify potential concerns involving research ethics, data integrity, methodological transparency, reproducibility, human participant protection, animal welfare, or other applicable ethical requirements.
The COPE Core Practices on Ethical Oversight and Data and Reproducibility encourage clear research reporting, appropriate data management, and the use of recognised standards to support the reliability of scholarly findings.
Reviewers should examine whether manuscripts provide adequate information about research procedures and whether the reported results can reasonably be evaluated against the methods described.
Where research involves farmers, consumers, agricultural workers, survey respondents, or other human participants, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript appropriately describes informed consent, privacy safeguards, and ethical approval where applicable.
Reviewers must not independently demand confidential participant-level information or access restricted research materials without editorial authorisation. Requests for supporting data must be communicated through the editorial office.

11. Plagiarism, Publication Misconduct, and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should alert the editor to credible concerns involving plagiarism, substantial textual overlap, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, manipulated citations, unethical research practices, or other suspected violations of publication ethics.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Suspicion of Ethics Violations advise reviewers to notify the journal about suspected irregularities and refrain from conducting independent investigations without editorial authorisation.
Reviewers must provide specific observations and supporting information whenever possible. Allegations must not be based solely on personal disagreements, professional rivalry, or unsupported assumptions.
Reviewers should distinguish legitimate methodological criticism from suspected research misconduct. Scientific disagreement, unexpected results, or an unconventional interpretation does not automatically demonstrate unethical conduct.
The editorial team is responsible for evaluating reported concerns and determining whether additional clarification, independent review, or an appropriate research integrity procedure is necessary.

12. Citation Ethics and Bibliographic Evaluation

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript appropriately acknowledges relevant previous scholarship and whether cited sources support the scientific arguments and conclusions presented.
Reviewers may recommend additional references when those sources are directly relevant to the research question, theoretical framework, methodology, or interpretation of findings.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Accountability discourage reviewers from requesting citations to their own publications or those of their associates merely to increase citation counts or academic visibility.
Reviewers must not pressure authors to cite irrelevant publications, favour particular researchers without scientific justification, or manipulate bibliographic references for personal or institutional benefit.

13. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Review Tools

Reviewers must comply with JIIP's Artificial Intelligence Policy when using digital tools during manuscript assessment. They remain personally responsible for their reviews, scientific judgements, and recommendations.
Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, confidential data, author information, or reviewer correspondence to external generative artificial intelligence systems without prior editorial authorisation and appropriate safeguards.
This requirement extends the confidentiality and personal accountability principles established in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers to contemporary AI-assisted manuscript evaluation.
AI-generated comments, summaries, or recommendations must not replace independent scholarly judgement. Where AI assistance has been expressly authorised, reviewers should disclose substantive use to the editor and independently verify the accuracy of relevant outputs.

14. Preparation and Submission of Review Reports

Reviewers must submit their assessments through the designated JIIP editorial system or another official channel authorised by the editorial office.
Review reports should provide a clear overview of the manuscript's strengths and limitations, identify major scientific concerns, explain necessary corrections, and present a recommendation supported by the reviewer's analysis.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on Appropriate Feedback recommend that reviewers provide fair and evidence-based assessments and ensure consistency between recommendations submitted to editors and comments communicated to authors.
Reviewers should distinguish major revisions affecting scientific validity from minor corrections involving language, formatting, presentation, or editorial clarity.
Comments intended for authors should be constructive and sufficiently specific to support manuscript improvement. Confidential comments intended only for editors must not contain unsupported accusations, inappropriate remarks, or statements inconsistent with the substantive review.

15. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Following manuscript assessment, reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection according to the options provided in the journal's review system.
Acceptance. A recommendation for acceptance may be appropriate when the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards and requires no substantial methodological or analytical correction.
Revision. A recommendation for revision may be appropriate when identifiable issues require clarification, additional analysis, improvements in scientific presentation, or other corrections that can reasonably be addressed by the authors.
Rejection. A recommendation for rejection may be appropriate when the manuscript contains fundamental methodological weaknesses, inadequate scientific contribution, unreliable findings, substantial inconsistencies, or other deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor. This arrangement is consistent with the COPE-supported transparency principles concerning peer-review procedures and editorial decision-making.
A reviewer recommendation does not guarantee a particular editorial outcome. Editors may consider multiple reviews, seek additional expert opinions, and assess the manuscript's overall relevance and quality before reaching a decision.

16. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess revised manuscripts when additional scientific evaluation is necessary. They should examine the authors' responses, evaluate modifications to the research, and determine whether significant concerns raised during the previous review have been adequately addressed.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, section on What to Consider After Peer Review encourage reviewers to assist with revised submissions where practicable and to remain responsive when editors request clarification concerning their earlier reports.
Reviewers should focus on the resolution of substantive scientific concerns and avoid introducing unnecessary new requirements unless those requirements arise from significant changes made during revision or newly identified methodological problems.
Reviewers must continue to respect manuscript confidentiality after completing their initial review and after the editorial process has concluded.

17. Reviewer Accountability and Professional Development

Reviewers are accountable for the independence, accuracy, professionalism, and ethical quality of their submitted assessments. They must not deliberately delay evaluations, misuse confidential information, manipulate recommendations, or exploit their role for personal advantage.
The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, sections on Accountability and Peer Review Training encourage responsible reviewer conduct, transparent mentoring arrangements, and professional development activities that strengthen the quality of scholarly assessment.
JIIP encourages reviewers to maintain their disciplinary competence, remain informed about appropriate research methods, and improve their understanding of publication ethics and responsible peer-review practices.
Where reviewers engage in authorised mentoring activities, the individuals participating in the review must be identified to the editorial office and must respect the same confidentiality and ethical requirements as the invited reviewer.

18. Policy Implementation and Compliance

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team of JIIP are responsible for administering these Reviewer Guidelines consistently and ensuring that reviewers receive appropriate information about their responsibilities, review procedures, confidentiality obligations, and evaluation criteria.
The journal may discontinue a review assignment or reconsider future reviewer appointments when credible evidence demonstrates serious violations of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate conduct, review manipulation, or other breaches of publication ethics.
By accepting a manuscript review invitation from Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian, reviewers agree to comply with the journal's applicable review procedures and uphold scientific objectivity, confidentiality, transparency, ethical responsibility, and professional integrity.