Instructions for Evaluators

The collaboration of the evaluators is of critical importance to ensure that the Agricultural Research Journal (RIA) has high quality and international prestige in the disciplines it publishes.
We therefore appreciate the valuable time they dedicate to review the texts which are referred to them.

The Process and Role of Evaluators
After a text is submitted to the jornal it is read by the Editorial Committee that determines if the article will be reviewed by no less than two evaluators or rejected because it does not comply with the profile of RIA.
The role of the referees is of the utmost importance to the quality of a scientific journal since they are recognized professionals who are at the forefront of knowledge in their specific field of expertise. Their selection is based on multiple factors including their experience, reputation and specific recommendations, among others.

As INTA has a significant number of internationally recognized researchers, one evaluator shall be from INTA and one shall be external (of a national or international body).

Issues to consider
The main purpose of a review is to provide editors with sufficient information to determine whether the text should be published or rejected. It is therefore important that evaluators take the following criteria into account:
- That sufficient evidence for its conclusions is provided;
- That it is a breakthrough in the discipline;
- That it is of extreme importance to scientists that conduct research in that discipline;
- That it is also of importance to scientists in other fields.

The following items shall be evaluated:
1- Presentation: conceptual clarity and logic of substantiations and conclusions.
2- Bibliography: adequate number of citations of other relevant research work.
3- Evidence: confidence in the methodology, data and analysis included in the paper. Appropriateness of the statistical design and sufficient data to support the conclusions.
4- Substantiation: soundness of the logic, arguments, inferences and interpretations.
5- Theory: verifiable and evidence-based conclusions.

After the evaluation, referees shall be requested to classify the papers in one of the following categories:
- Outrightly rejected; typically on grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual
advance or major interpretation or technical problems.
- Accepted with major changes required.
- Accepted with minimum changes required.
- Fully accepted.

Timing
Editorial time is extremely important for a journal that is at the forefront of research in agriculture, agri-foods and agro-industry. Evaluators are therefore requested to review the papers within a maximum period of 30 days.
However, if a longer delay is anticipated, they are requested to notify this in advance to keep authors informed of the status of the evaluation of their paper.

Ethics
Firstly, it is important to note the confidentiality of the evaluation of all papers that are submitted to the referees.
If any type of conflict of interest exists, evaluators are required to inform the editor who shall take all necessary measures.

Conflicts may arise due to:
• Competition for the publication, grants or commercial interests.
• Insider dealing. Papers forwarded to the referees are confidential implying that they shall not use, keep copies or show peers any part of the paper without a special authorization.
• Personal prejudices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>