Peer Review Process

The reviewer report should provide a thorough critique of the submission and consist of more than just a few brief sentences. While the Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics (BJAE) does not mandate a specific structure for reports, the following format is suggested:

• General Comments: Major issues
• Specific Comments: Minor issues

We encourage reviewers to assist authors in improving their manuscripts. The report should provide constructive feedback, particularly when revisions are recommended. If reviewers wish to include comments that they do not want the authors to see, these can be added to the confidential comments for the Managing Editor.

Key Aspects for Review

Reviewers should evaluate several core aspects of the submission, including:

• Validity of the research questions
• Sufficiency of the sample size
• Existence of necessary ethical approval and/or consent, and overall ethical considerations
• Appropriateness of the methods and study design for addressing the research question
• Adequacy of controls in the experiments
• Clarity and reproducibility of the methods, including details of equipment and materials
• Correct usage and reporting of any statistical tests
• Clarity and accuracy of figures and tables in representing results
• Discussion of previous research by the authors and others, with comparisons to current findings
• Appropriateness of citations, avoiding unsupported claims or excessive self-citations
• Support of the results for the conclusions drawn
• Acknowledgment of the limitations of the research
• Accuracy of the abstract as a summary of the research and results, free from bias
• Clarity and comprehensibility of the language used

To ensure timely reviews, reviewers should submit their reports via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. If reviewers cannot meet the deadline, they should contact the Managing Editor to arrange an alternative date.

Reviewers are encouraged to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the validity of the methodology and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Comments on the novelty and potential impact of the work are also welcome. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

• Publishable without revision (No Revision)
• Publishable after minor revisions (Minor Revision)
• Publishable only after applying significant corrections (Major Revision)
• Reject

It is important to note that the final decision will be made by the Executive Editor.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under peer review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group if confidentiality is maintained; however, they should first contact the Managing Editor and note the names of any consulted colleagues in the ‘Comments to the Editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will remain anonymous to the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:

• Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
• Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author
• Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author
• Have a close personal connection to any author
• Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
• Feel unable to remain objective

Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be taken into consideration by the editor. Reviewers should disclose any prior discussions they have had with the authors regarding the manuscript. Concerns about undisclosed financial, institutional, commercial, personal, ideological, or academic interests should be reported in the reviewer’s comments.