Peer Review Policy

At the Journal of Horticulture and Agriculture Sciences (JHAS), we believe that rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of advancing agricultural innovation and maintaining the integrity of horticultural research. These guidelines are designed for reviewers participating in our double-blind peer review process. All submitted manuscripts, including original research, reviews, and technical notes, undergo a comprehensive evaluation before publication.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

JHAS adheres to a double-blind review model to ensure the highest standards of objectivity:

• Anonymity: Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process to prevent bias.
• Merit-Based Evaluation: Manuscripts are assessed strictly on their scientific merit, originality, technical accuracy, and relevance to the global and regional agricultural landscape.

 Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers serve as expert advisors to the Editorial Board, providing critical recommendations on whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected. Key responsibilities include:

• Assessing Scientific Rigor: Evaluating the experimental design, field/laboratory methodology, statistical analysis (e.g., use of PCA, ANOVA, or specialized R scripts), and the logical flow of conclusions.
• Evaluating Parameter Accuracy: Ensuring that exact terms and units (e.g., Plant height cm) are used correctly and that results are interpreted with statistical significance.
• Providing Constructive Feedback: Offering clear, professional, and actionable insights to help authors improve their work, regardless of the final recommendation.
• Ensuring Scholarly Context: Identifying missed citations or relevant recent studies that could strengthen the manuscript’s background.
• Maintaining Confidentiality: Treating all submitted data, images, and text as privileged information that must not be shared or used before publication.
• Declaring Conflicts of Interest: Disclosing any personal, professional, or financial competing interests to the Editorial Office before accepting a review invitation.

Guidelines for Submitting Review Comments

Reviewers are requested to access the JHAS e-submission portal to download the manuscript and any associated supplementary data sheets.

• Focus on Logic: While minor language issues are secondary, reviewers should focus on the logical interpretation of results and the validity of the research findings.
• Data Presentation: Evaluate whether tables and figures clearly illustrate the ranges (minimum/maximum) and trends observed in the study.
• Final Decision: While reviewers provide a recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject), the Final Decision rests with the JHAS Editorial Board