Reviewer and Author Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for agreeing to review for the Torkwase Journal of Agricultural Research. Your critical expertise is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of the scholarly record. Our journal employs a double-blind peer review process.

Ethical Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must adhere to the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct throughout the review process.

  • Confidentiality: The submitted manuscript is a privileged and confidential document. You must not disclose any details about the manuscript (including its title, authors, content, or your review) to anyone outside of the review process.
  • No Unauthorised Use: Information gained during the review process must not be used for your personal advantage or the advantage of a third party.
  • AI Use is Prohibited: You are strictly prohibited from uploading any part of the manuscript, including the abstract, into any Generative AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, etc.). This is mandatory to protect the authors' confidentiality and intellectual property rights.
  • Impartiality: Reviews must be objective. Do not let your judgment be influenced by the author's nationality, religious/political beliefs, gender, institutional affiliation, or commercial considerations.
  • Timeliness: You must return your review promptly. If you cannot meet the deadline, please inform the editorial office immediately so a new reviewer can be assigned.
  • Conflict of Interest (COI): You must state all potential COIs (financial, professional, or personal) that may affect your ability to provide an objective review. If a conflict is significant, you must decline the invitation.

Structured Guide to Conducting the Review

A constructive and comprehensive review should address the following areas:

1. Overall Assessment: Provide a summary of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Clearly state the contribution(s) to the field of agriculture.

  • Significance: Does the research address an important problem or gap in the literature?
  • Originality: Does the paper present novel findings, methods, or theoretical insights?
  • Clarity and Organization: Is the writing clear, well-structured, and easy to follow?

2. Specific Sectional Critique: Your review should provide specific feedback on the quality and structure of the manuscript, moving sequentially through the document.

Begin by evaluating the Title and Abstract. Ensure the title is clear and engaging, and that the abstract accurately reflects the manuscript's mandated structured format, covering the Objective, Method, Results, and Conclusion. Next, assess the Literature Review. Here, you should determine if the cited sources are current and relevant to the study's claims. Crucially, verify that the review effectively identifies the theoretical or empirical gap the research aims to fill, and that the theoretical framework selected is sound and appropriate.

Moving to the Materials and Methods section, confirm that the research design is robust and suitable for the stated objectives. The description of the sample/experiment, the experimental design or sampling method, and the data collection instruments must be clearly justified and detailed enough to allow for future replication. In the Results and Discussion sections, assess whether the findings are clearly presented, often accompanied by appropriate tables or figures. Verify that any statistical tests used are both correct and correctly interpreted. The discussion must then be scrutinised to ensure it effectively links the results back to the original theoretical framework and engages thoughtfully with the existing body of literature. Finally, evaluate the Conclusion and Implications, confirming that the conclusion logically follows from the results. Ensure that the claimed practical and scholarly implications are not oversold or asserted beyond the scope of the actual findings. Throughout your review, check that the manuscript adheres to the journal's APA 7th Edition referencing style, confirming the citation list is complete and relevant.

3. Final Recommendations

Your review should conclude with a clear recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Please select one of the following options:

  1. Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.
  2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript can be accepted after addressing small errors, improving clarity, or making minor structural changes.
  3. Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes to the methodology, analysis, or discussion before it can be reconsidered. A second round of peer review is necessary.
  4. Reject: The manuscript is fundamentally flawed, lacks originality, or is outside the journal's scope.

Communication and Submission

  • Reviewer Comments: All comments must be separated into two sections:
    • Comments to the Author: These should be constructive, specific, and professional. Use line numbers or page numbers to reference specific issues.
    • Confidential Comments to the Editor: Use this section for any ethical concerns (e.g., suspected misconduct, potential COI, or concerns about data integrity) that the authors should not see.
  • Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on publication after considering all peer review reports. The anonymity of the reviewers will be maintained at all times.

 

 

Author Guidelines

The Torkwase Journal of Agricultural Research requires all manuscripts to adhere strictly to the following formatting and structural specifications to ensure efficient review and publication.

General Formatting and Length

All manuscripts submitted to the Torkwase Journal of Agricultural Research must adhere strictly to the following technical and stylistic requirements to ensure efficient review and publication. The total length of each submitted manuscript must range from 3,000 to 5,000 words, which includes all content such as the main text, references, tables, and figures. All documents must be prepared using Times New Roman font at a 12-point size and must be double-spaced throughout. For referencing, the journal strictly follows the APA 7th Edition style. Authors are expected to cite between 15 and 20 scholarly sources and are strongly encouraged to prioritise reputable, impact factor journals to establish the scholarly foundation of their work.

Manuscript Structure and Content

1. Title Page (Separate File)

The title page must be submitted as a separate document to facilitate anonymous peer review. It must include the full manuscript title, the full names and current institutional affiliation(s) for all authors, and complete contact details (email and phone number) for the corresponding author. Providing the ORCID ID for all authors is a compulsory requirement.

2. Manuscript Body (Anonymised Main File)

The main manuscript document must be anonymised (excluding author names or affiliations) and must begin with a structured abstract followed by the main text.

3. Structured Abstract

The abstract must not exceed 300 words and must follow this specific template, with each element clearly identified:

  • Title: Must not exceed 50 words. Use lowercase, except where capitalisation is necessary (e.g., proper nouns).
  • Objective (or Purpose): Clearly state the central problem or gap the study aims to address.
  • Method: Detail the research design, sample size, sampling procedure, experimental design, and instruments used for data collection.
  • Results: Present the key findings in clear, concise language.
  • Conclusion: Concisely sum up the study's main takeaways and implications.
  • Keywords: List 4-6 keywords that accurately represent the paper's content, separated by a comma.

ISSN (Print): 2006-0556

ISSN (Online): 2006-3393