Instructions for Reviewers

An article submitted for publication is subjected to a double-blind peer-review process participated by at least 2 reviewers. Articles are sent to reviewers in an anonymous form (without names and other personal data of the authors). Reviewers also remain anonymous.

A review should be prepared in English on review form in “ Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine” Editorial System (https://www.editorialsystem.com/aaem).

A review should be prepared and submitted to the editorial office within 21 days since the day of receiving an article. After this time the access to the article is blocked by the Editorial System. If a reviewer is not capable of completing this task within such deadline, should inform us about it instantly after accepting the invitation for reviewing the article.

Reviewers are asked to prepare a detailed review evaluating the content of the article. The linguistic aspects are checked by a linguistic editor provided by “Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine”. Poor level of English, making the paper difficult to understand, should be reported by a reviewer, nevertheless it should not be a decisive factor leading to the paper being dismissed.

A reviewer evaluates selected aspects of reviewed articles:
if the issues raised in the article are consistent with the profile of the Journal,
Are the title, abstract and key words clearly presented?
Have the introduction and objective of the article been clearly presented?
Has the present state of knowledge been sufficiently presented?
Has the research material clearly been presented?
Have proper methods been used?
Are the results of the study correctly presented and interpreted?
Do the results justify the conclusions?
Are the tables clear enough? If NO, which tables should be re-edited or deleted?
Are the figures clear enough? If NO, which figures should be re-edited or deleted?
Are the most relevant reports cited?
What is the significance of the article for the discipline(s) represented by the journal?


Final conclusion – options

a) accept without changes
b) accept after changes suggested by reviewer
c) rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review
d) reject

Both acceptance and dismissal of a paper require justification. If a paper requires changes, a reviewer should indicate suggested corrections in a clear way.

Revision of manuscript

A corrected article will be sent to the same reviewer for revision (several revisions are possible). The reviewer are asked to revise the article and send their recommendation concerning publication of the article within 7 days. After this time the access to the article is blocked by the Editorial System.