Reviewing process

Reviewers play an important role in building and maintaining the reputation of the journal. We therefore attach great importance to your recommendations as a reviewer in order to be able to make a decision concerning the acceptance of a manuscript for publication. Please provide appropriate, professional and helpful feedback to the author.

1 Benefits of AUP-SNA reviewers

From January 2021, the journal grants a reduction on the publication fees to reviewers, for their own articles accepted for publication when they are among the first three authors. This reduction is only valid for the year in which the evaluation was made.

Also, the reviews carried out for AUP-SNA will be transferred to a Publon account (https://publons.com) and / or ReviewerCredit (https://reviewercredits.editage.com), and reviewers may use them to justify their participation in scientific work evaluation activities. 

2 Editorial line

The journal Annals of the University of Parakou - "Natural Sciences and Agronomy" Series  is a scientific journal with a reading committee and open access. It is intended for a diverse audience made up of development professionals (technicians and engineers), researchers, lecturers, students and farmers, among others. The articles, written in French or in English, must be original, constitute an important scientific or technical contribution for this public and interest an international readership.

The journal publishes multidisciplinary research work (experiments, surveys, modeling, simulations, meta-analyses, and syntheses) in all areas of natural, agronomic and environmental sciences. It is particularly interested in the rationalization of production, the improvement of production systems, as well as the development and sustainable use of natural resources.

More specifically, the journal is open to work concerning:

  • Plant science (plant production, horticulture, plant protection, storage and conservation of harvest products);
  • Animal science (zootechnics, animal health, fishing, aquaculture, genetic improvement of animals, domestication and exploitation of unconventional species);
  • Agri-food sciences, nutrition and food safety, including the processing and use of animal and plant products in food or industry;
  • Natural resources management (forest, fauna, water) and rural territories, including forestry, ecology, environmental impacts, biodiversity conservation, management of protected areas, ecotourism, irrigation and water management;
  • The economics and sociology of production systems and natural resources;
  • Agricultural development in general, and technical, institutional and policy innovations in all of the above areas.

In addition to the general guidelines presented here, we invite you to regularly refer to the instructions to authors for evaluating manuscripts submitted to the Annals of the University of Parakou – Natural Sciences and Agronomy Series.

3 Manuscript evaluation principles

The editorial board aims to work with authors to improve their manuscripts for publication in our journal while ensuring rapid processing of submitted articles. Submitted articles are reviewed by the editorial board and anonymous reviewers who assess manuscripts based on:

  • Suitability for the journal;
  • Interest of the subject for the public of the journal;
  • Rigor of the reasoning and clarity of the writing.

The evaluation should be fair, prompt, confidential, and provide constructive criticism when needed. The final decision to accept or reject the article is made by the editorial board.

The journal uses a double-blind review process (anonymity of authors and reviewers) to ensure maximum impartiality.

4 Manuscripts evaluation

The review process will be done by protecting as much as possible the anonymity of the authors vis-à-vis the reviewers and vice versa. As such, authors and reviewers should remove their identity from file properties (File menu in Word), by clicking the following commands in recent versions of Word: File > Info > Inspect Document > Remove Personal Information from File when recording > Save (or OK).

To ensure objective review of manuscripts, we ask reviewers to provide clear justification for their views (rather than mere opinions) and to refrain from offensive, inappropriate or condescending language. We also recommend considering the following in the assessment:

  • Is the content of the manuscript useful for the readership of the journal? In the case of a literature review, is the topic relevant and does it provide a synthetic account of existing knowledge?
  • Is the title of the manuscript understandable and in line with the content?
  • Does the abstract provide sufficient information about the motivations for the study, the methods used, the results obtained, and the theoretical or practical implications of the study?
  • Does the introduction clearly state the problem being studied, as well as the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses? Does it correctly situate the problem addressed in the context of what is already known about the subject through the literature review?
  • Were the experimental materials and methods properly chosen and fully described? Were the experiments designed and executed appropriately? Have the statistical procedures been applied correctly?
  • Are the results complete and correctly described, in relation to the central research question or hypothesis?
  • Is the text consistent with the tables and figures presented? Are all tables and figures necessary? Do they contain relevant information and are they adequately described (titles, legends, units, definitions, abbreviations)?
  • Does the discussion summarize the results well and clearly provide an answer to the central research question or hypothesis? Is the interpretation of the results correct and comprehensive, and does it rely sufficiently on the results of other studies?
  • Are the conclusions linked to the results presented, and are they properly written? Is there redundancy between the abstract and the conclusion?
  • Have the bibliographic references been chosen correctly? Do you know of any references that authors should refer to and discuss?
  • Have all the references cited in the text been presented in the list of references (and vice versa)?
  • Is the manuscript well written as a whole (French or English)? Is it easy to read and understand? Which parts of the manuscript did you particularly like?

5 Reviewer Recommendations

Possible recommendations are:

  1. Accept submission.
  2. Revisions required.
  3. Resubmit for Review.
  4. Resubmit Elsewhere.
  5. Decline Submission.

Your final recommendations will be uploaded to the journal platform. You will need to create an account to do this. We urge you to return your comments and recommendations before the deadline, and to keep your evaluation confidential. In particular, you will not use submitted manuscripts and other materials for any purpose other than the review process.

The editorial board thanks you for your time and your expertise, as well as for the speed with which you will respond to this invitation.