Review Process
Thank you for agreeing to be a reviewer for the Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security (Agri-Gender).
The main task for the reviewer is to provide advice to the Editor-in-Chief, who together with the editorial board makes the final decision.
All papers will be sent to at least two reviewers. The review will be double-blind; all the identifying information will be removed from the manuscript before sending to the reviewers. The authors will not know the identity of the reviewers and reviewers will not know the identity of the authors.
On receipt of the reviews, the editor will make a decision regarding publication. If the manuscript is not rejected, it will be sent to the authors for revision. Once revisions are received from the authors, the editor will go through the revised manuscripts to ensure reviewers' comments are incorporated. If the editor is satisfied that the authors have adequately addressed the concerns of the reviewers the paper will go to the next step of the publication process. In some cases, the paper may be sent back to the reviewer for a second review.
Reviewers are encouraged to be as rigorous as possible in the review while at the same time providing constructive comments. Even in the event that we do not accept a paper, we would like to send constructive comments to the authors.
Reviewers should send comments to the editor on editors@agrigender.org
Summarize the comments into a letter to the editor with the general comments and specific comments on different aspects of the paper using the table below. Be as specific as possible. In addition to these summarized comments, reviewers can also make comments directly onto the manuscript.
Criteria for Review
Consider the following criteria when you review the manuscript;
|
1. General Criteria |
|
|
Focus |
Is the focus of the paper on gender, agriculture and food security? Is the paper well focused on key issues and the current debates? |
|
Originality and value add |
Is it original research? Does the paper add any new knowledge? Is it clear what the scientific contribution of the paper is? |
|
Overall research design |
Is there a scientific reliability? Is the paper conceptually sound? Is the overall design of the research valid? Are all relevant details of a scientific paper included and well written? Are the data collection and analysis methods appropriate and thorough? Are the conclusions drawn from the evidence? |
|
Presentation |
Is the paper well presented, written in good English with no grammar or spelling mistakes? Is it well understood? Are the arguments in the paper logical? |
|
2. Section Review |
|
|
Abstract |
Does the abstract give enough information on the paper? Does it represent what the paper is about? |
|
Introduction |
Does the introduction describe what the problem is, what has been done on the problem, what the key research gaps are, what the key research questions the paper is trying to answer are? Does it describe what the contribution of the paper to filling the research gap is? |
|
Review of literature |
Has the relevant literature been cited? Is analysis of previous research on the topic adequately covered? Is the literature up to date? Are there any glaring gaps (literature on the topic that you feel should have been referred to?) |
|
Methods |
Are the methods adequately described? Are the methods appropriate for this kind of study? Has gender analysis been adequately carried out? Is the unit of analysis appropriate? Is the analysis appropriate and rigorous? Have ethical considerations been taken into account? |
|
Results and discussion |
Are the results clearly presented? Do the results address the research issues or the problem articulated in the introduction? Are the results supported by other evidence? Do the authors refer to other similar or contrasting studies to support their results? Are they credible? Are they well-presented using tables, and graphs? |
|
Conclusions |
Are the conclusions well presented? Are they drawn from the results presented? Is the message clear? |
Reviewers can make any one of the following recommendations
- Accept for publication with no revisions
- Accept for publication pending minor revisions
- Accept for publication pending major revisions
- Revise and re-submit for review
- Reject
