Scribd
Upload
79 views

Reviewers' Guide (Tentative)

The document is a tentative reviewers' guide for the journal Paddy and Water Environment. It provides instructions for reviewers on standards for manuscript acceptance, the peer review process, and a checklist for reviewing manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on scientific merit and make a recommendation on approval. The chief managing editor requests cooperation to improve the tentative guide.

Uploaded by

ardian923
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views

Reviewers' Guide (Tentative)

The document is a tentative reviewers' guide for the journal Paddy and Water Environment. It provides instructions for reviewers on standards for manuscript acceptance, the peer review process, and a checklist for reviewing manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts on scientific merit and make a recommendation on approval. The chief managing editor requests cooperation to improve the tentative guide.

Uploaded by

ardian923
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Dear Reviewers

The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment have not yet
finalizing the Editor’s guide. Your cooperation for improving this tentative
Reviewers’ Guide would be highly appreciated.
Sincerely yours,

Yoshisuke Nakano
Chief Managing Editor of Paddy and Water Environment

Reviewers’ Guide (Tentative)

The policy of publishing the Paddy and Water Environment (PWE) is devoting to the
advancement and dissemination of scientific knowledge and technology of water and
environment related disciplines in paddy farming. It is an international English journal
covers all the paddy-farming related scientific and technological aspects in agricultural
engineering such as irrigation and drainage, soil and water conservation, land and water
resources management, paddy multi-functionality, agricultural policy, regional planning,
bioenvironmental systems, and ecological conservation and restoration in paddy
farming.

Standards of Acceptance for Manuscripts


1.Manuscripts: The manuscripts submitted for publication must be previously
unpublished research works written in English, which are not being considered for
publication elsewhere.
2.Types of Manuscripts: The papers are classified into four categories.
Articles: Articles cover full reports of research work that must be written following
the guidelines (Form of Manuscripts) with the minimum length required for a precise
description and clear interpretation of theoretical or experimental work.
Technical Reports: Technical reports must present original and important
contribution to research applications in the field covered by PWE, emphasize the
application of engineering knowledge and skills, be well organized and objective, and
conclusions should be useful.
Reviews: Reviews dealing with all aspects of paddy-farming related scientific and
technological aspects in agricultural engineering will be accepted, and authoritative
and critical reviews of the current state of knowledge are preferred. There is no
prescribed layout for reviews, but the tables, and manner of citations should conform
to the guidelines (Form of Manuscripts) for articles.
Short Communications: Short communications are concise but complete of limited
investigation on the critical issues in the field of PWE.

Procedures of Peer Review


1. The Editorial Board checks your manuscript for the Paddy and Water Environment
for proper format and conformance with "Instructions for Authors".
2. The manuscript is then forwarded to the appropriate Editor who selects two or more
qualified reviewers. The manuscript is forwarded by email or mail to each reviewer
who is asked to confirm his or her willingness to perform the review in a timely
manner (within three weeks if possible).
3. If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified lacks the time to fairly judge the work
reported, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly to the editor.
4. A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit and
shall respect the intellectual independence of author(s). Personal criticism is never
appropriate.
5. A reviewer shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If a
manuscript submitted for review presents a potential conflicts of interest or reviewer
has personal bias, the reviewer shall return the manuscript promptly without review,
and advice the editor.
6. Reviewers shall explain and support judgment adequately so that the editor and
author(s) may understand the basis for their comments. Any statement that an
observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported shall be
accompanied by the relevant citation.
7. A reviewer shall call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the
manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript
submitted concurrently to another journals.
8. A reviewer shall not use disclose unpublished information, arguments or
interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration.

Checklist
1.Title ： Does the title describe adequately the subject of the manuscript?
Can you suggest any improvement in wording?
2. Abstract ： Does the abstract tell in brief the reasons for the study,
methods used, results, and conclusions? Abstracts are the most widely read
section of a paper.
3. Review of Literature ： Does the author give due credit to relevant
contributions of others? Does the author place the contribution in proper
perspective in relation to the state of knowledge of the subject? Is the numbers
of literature citations excessive?
4. Objectives ： Is the statement of objectives adequate and appropriate in
view of the subject matter?
5. Methods：Are the methods appropriate for the purpose for which they are
used? Have suitable measurements been performed to test the validity? Have
proper control measurements been made? Are the methods described in
sufficient detail to permit a reasonably competent reader to repeat the work; or,
if not, are sources cited in which the appropriate detail is given.
6. Clarity ： Does the author write the information in a relatively simple,
straightforward manner that can be readily understood by a reasonably
competent reader? Do the author’s words say what you think they mean?
7. Organization ： Does the manuscript develop the subject logically and
effectively?
8. Duplication ： Does the manuscripts repeat unnecessarily the published
work of the author or others? Can the manuscript be shortened without loss of
content by condensing two or more tables into one? Are all the figures needed if
the same data are given also in tabular form? Is there unnecessary duplication
in the text?
9. Calculations ： In a few instances selected at random, can you verify the
calculations made by the author?
10. Effectiveness of Presentation of Data ： Should data presented by the
author in graphs be given instead in tables because of the importance of the
absolute numerical values or the ineffectiveness of the graphs? Should data
presented by the author in tables be shown instead or also in graphs?
11. Correspondence of Text with Tables and Figures ： Are all tables and
figures referred to in the text? Do statements in the text correspond to the
content of tables and figures?
12. Titles of Tables and Figures ： Do the titles state the content? Can you
suggest any improvement in wording?
13. Headings in Tables ： Is the interpretation clear and unequivocal and in
the correct SI units?
14. Graphs ： Do they contain all the observations, or have some been
omitted? Is the plotting of data accurate?
15. Conclusions ： Are they adequate? Are they supported by the data? Are
they stated unambiguously?
16. Conjecture ： Does the author distinguish clearly between conjecture and
fact? Is the amount of conjecture excessive?
17. References ： Are there any obvious errors, such as misspelled names of
authors?
18. Editorial Style ： Does the manuscript conform to current editorial style
and format, including SI units?
Instruction for Reviewing of Manuscripts
(Please complete and return to the Editor)

Manuscript Number______
Title

Scientific Merit
1. Does the manuscript have the potential to expand the fundamental knowledge in its
specific area?

2. Is the manuscript scientifically sound?

3. Is the investigator(s) cognizant of past work?

4. Does the manuscript thoroughly evaluate all necessary avenues of the study?

5. Are the objectives clear and logical?

6. Are the methodologies, designs, and analytical techniques appropriate, adequate,


and completely described?

7. Are the conclusions objective, significant, and sound based on the findings of the
Investigator?

8. Does the manuscript reflect originality and ingenuity in its appropriate field?
Recommendations (Check one)
A: Approval
The manuscript should be accepted for publication without change or with
minor alterations to be left to the author. This recommendation alone is an
acceptable report, but if minor alterations are suggested, they should be
indicated in the separate review.

B: Approval with conditions, but without re-peer review.


The manuscript should be revised with due attention to comments of reviewers
before acceptance for publication. A separate review in sufficient detail to alert
the author to needed changes should accompany this recommendation.

C: Approval with conditions and re-peer review


The manuscript should be rewritten before it is in suitable condition for detailed
review. If you have good reason to believe that the manuscript does not
represent the best efforts of the author, it may be returned without detailed
review. Comments of a convincing nature and examples are needed by the
editor to aid them in arriving at a decision and in communication with the
author. Good judgment is needed in the use of this recommendation in as much
as some inexperienced but otherwise deserving authors can be materially
helped by constructive criticism in the preparation of the present manuscript as
well as in the preparation of future manuscripts.

D: Disapproval
The manuscript should be released to the author for scientific reasons.
Adequate justification is expected with this recommendation.

If it appears that you will be unable to furnish a review within three weeks,
please return the manuscript at once so that it can be sent to another reviewer.

Reviewed By:
(Name of reviewer will be removed before forwarding to authors)

Date:

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy