Peer Review
Articles are received in 3 copies on A4 white papers, typed double spaced in Times New Roman font 12. [This is stated in the instruction to authors]. Immediately on the receipt of an article, such article is checked for the physical content i.e. it is expected to be in 3 copies. If there are illustrations, diagrams, pictures etc, such must be in 3 copies as well. The article is immediately ascribed a code. JARD uses MMS with the serial number following e.g. MMS 34. There is a gap between the letters and the figures. Using the code an article will be processed for review and other treatments for the purpose of publishing. Information concerning the article is documented to include the code, full names and addresses of all the authors, the date article was received and some others to be mentioned later. The article is inspected per copy to ascertain its completeness e.g. if the first copy has a graph or picture, such graph or picture must be present in the other 2 copies. The names and addresses of the authors are cut off the 2nd and 3rd copies. Whatever other marks or writings that can release the identity of the authors are removed especially the acknowledgment be it in the beginning or end of the article. The board has a list of reviewers in the different specialty areas with the names, academic title and current mailing addresses, where possible the e-mails and phone numbers. Such list is up-dated periodically to increase the reviewers in the specialty areas. Two of the reviewers are selected from the specialty areas to which the article belongs. Care is taken not to [1] use repeatedly the same reviewer [2] send an another article to a reviewer who is still treating one of our articles [3] send an article to any one of the authors of the article to be reviewed. [4] send an article to a reviewer who, from the Editior’s judgement due to certain factors, will show bias in the assessment of the article by such reviewer. The article having been ascribed 2 reviewers will be mailed to the reviewers for assessment. The process up to this stage takes maximum of 2 working days. Each reviewer receives the following along with a copy of the article to be reviewed: [1] An amount of N400 as token of incentive for performing the review. [2] A letter to request the scientist to review the article. This is signed by the Editor-in- Chief. Such letter indicates the MMS, title and a time limit of 3 weeks to review the article. [3] An assessment sheet for the summary of the review to succinctly indicate the opinion of the reviewer on certain facts e.g. if [a] the abstract truly summarizes the report [b] the methodology and conduct of the experiment are suitable and consistent with modern concepts. [c] the presentation of the result is adequate [d] the paper makes meaningful contribution to knowledge On the same document, the reviewer is required to classify the article as [a] acceptable in the present form [b] acceptable with minor corrections [c] acceptable with major corrections [d] not acceptable The document has to be signed by the reviewer and the document becomes the basis for the decision of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board on such article. [4] The 3rd document is a blank sheet of paper which carries on top of it “ Reviewer’s comment” and the code “MMS ??” of the article. The full comment of the reviewer is contained in this sheet and the reviewer may choose to add more pages. He has a space to write his/her full names and sign at the bottom of the page. This signed portion is detached and documented with the second sheet. The detailed comment [without the reviewer’s name and signature] is forwarded to the author[s] along with the copy of the article from the reviewer. If the 2 reviews judge the article as acceptable with minor corrections, such article is sent to the authors with the reviewers’ full comment to effect the corrections. The Board would consider such articles as potentially acceptable until the final correction is done. The Editorial Board has not received an article reviewed and judged “acceptable in its present form.” An article judged “not acceptable” is rejected outright and communicated to the authors. If the judgement is split i.e. acceptable with major corrections and not acceptable, such article is rejected and communicated to the author[s]. In the last 2 cases the papers from the reviewers are as well returned to the authors. If the judgements of the reviewers are to accept an article with major corrections, the article is rejected. If there is split decision and a paper is judged acceptable with minor correction and with major correction, the Editorial Board will request a major correction and representation of the article for review. Depending on the quality of the paper at that instance the Board will decide whether the article should be represented as a full paper or short communication. Further information concerning an article is documented to include the names and addresses of the reviewers, the date of dispatch of the articles to reviewers, the date of receipt of the review reports, the reviewers’ judgements and the Board’s decision on the paper. In cases when a reviewer or the two do not respond within the time limit for review, reminders are sent to such reviewers. If however there is no response, the first copy is photocopied and sent out to other reviewers in the specialty area. Authors whose papers are acceptable are requested to send an electronic copy of the article in a floppy diskette along with a hard copy of the corrected version of the article. These are used for the publication.Publication Scheduling
A biannual publication
Journal of Agricultural Research and Development
