Reviewer Guidelines

About the Journal Aim and Scope Abstracting and Indexing Author Guidelines Author Index Ethical Guidelines Copyright Form Editorial Board
Submission Current Issue Previous Issue Reviewer Guidelines Reviewers Peer Review Process Journal contact FAQs
The Journal of Nepal Agricultural Research Council is peer review journal. Peer review is the collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. Upon receipt, manuscripts are assessed for their suitability for publication by the editorial staff. Only the manuscripts meeting the journal’s general criteria for consideration are sent out for review.
Conducting the Review
Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the articles that have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. In general, a single manuscript is reviewed by three anonymous reviewers. The reviewer should consider the following things.
  • Importance to researchers in the field
  • Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field
  • Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions
  • Conducted according to the highest ethical standards
  • The reviewer should focus on below questions of each section.
Does the title clearly represent the main theme and contents of the manuscript?
Does it resemble with key words used in the manuscript?
Does it represent the concise form of the complete manuscript?
Does the author/s indicate what the objective of the study is, what is being researched, how it was carried on and what are the main findings, conclusions and implications?
Does it accurately describe what the author main goals to achieve?
Are you satisfied with the problems being investigated? Is the statement of the problems briefed satisfactorily?
Do the contents in this section referred relevant, up to date and most recent research works published in refereed journals to justify the context of research?
Materials and Method
Does the author mention satisfactorily how the data/ information were collected?
Does the author apply universally known methods to address the problems? Are there citations?
Does the materials and methods replicable by other scientists of the same field?
Does the author clearly give the range of main and sub-main parameters minimum, maximum and mean values?
Are the statistics correct? Does the author mention P-values in parenthesis after using the term‘significant?
Are results laid out in a logical sequence?
Does the author describe the result based on Tables, Figures, Photographs etc. used in the Manuscript sequentially?The tables and figures used in the manuscript should be precisely incorporated in sequential order in the result section. In this section, generally the minimum, maximum and mean values of the parameters should be mentioned. Likewise statistical values should also be mentioned.
Discussion and Conclusion
In discussion section, at first the findings of the research should be elaborated giving citation of previous works supporting the hypothesis and present findings, Are the claims in this section supported by the results citing the tables and figures which support the claims.Does the author gives clear cut result what has been discovered.
Does the author provide adequate arguments and support in support of findings. Are the new findings articulated with the goal and result? Are you satisfied with the argument made? Do the arguments seem reasonable?
Are the recommendations based on the findings? What are the implications of the findings?
Are the graphs clear and within the size ? Units used in Y and X axis satisfactorily?
If necessary can the author supply raw data to the reviewers.
Are the references cited properly and follows all instructions comply with NARC Journal?
Ethics, Originality and Relevance
Whether the article is a substantial copy of another work?
Whether it contains ideas and language without properly crediting the sources?
Are the author accept the conditions to keep the used data at least for 3 years safe after the publication of the data ?
Do you have any financial conflict with the authors of the manuscript?
Language and Format
Does the article follow NARC journal format accurately?
Is the article readable and communicative in terms of language and style?The reviewer should make a recommendation regarding an article; it is worth considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the article.
  • Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
  • Accept without revision
  • Accept but needs revision (either major or minor)
During the manuscripts evaluation process, the reviewers should follow and fulfill the “Review Form” and it  should be sent to editorial office along with  revised manuscripts.
  • Click below to download form:
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Each reviewer must sign a declaration about a conflict of interest. The declaration is included in the reviewer’s form. Reviewers must confirm that there is no conflict of interest between him/her and the author(s) of the reviewed article in respect to: a) direct personal relations (family relationship, legal ties, conflict), b) professional relationship, c) direct scientific collaboration during the last two years prior to doing the review.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts, in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.