Reviewer Guidelines

CROJFE is especially thankful to reviewers for their help in grading the work, as well as their suggestions for possible improvements. The list of reviewers is constantly being extended with new experts from specific fields, primarily those who actively help in promoting CROJFE.

Receiving and responding to an invitation

As a reviewer, you will be notified by email of an invitation to review a manuscript. By selecting the appropriate hyperlink in the mail, you can automatically register your replay (agreed/declined / unavailable) with our online manuscript submission and review system. Additionally, if not sure, you can view the .doc file of the manuscript with given access and then decide whether or not to take the review.

Questions you should consider when deciding on the invitation to review a manuscript are:
   - Does the article you are being asked to review truly match your expertise?
   - Do you have time to review the paper?
   - Are there any potential conflicts of interest?

If you agree to review the manuscript, you will be provided with appropriate codes (username, password) for logging into our online review system and access the manuscript.


Conducting the Review

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. The goal of the review process is to improve the scientific quality of the submission and to provide recommendations that will help the editor to make the final decision. 
Reviewing is conducted confidentially. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the Editor. Also, the reviewer will be anonymous to the author unless he or she wishes otherwise.

Reviewer evaluates the article on some criteria. CROJFE provides detailed guidance (Evaluation form) which helps in assessing the article.

The following items are offered as guidelines for the review:

  • Relevance of the paper:
    - originality and significance of the paper
    - general and international interest in the results
  • Contents of the paper:
    - stated and unambiguous aim of the paper
    - clear and concise presentation of data
    - proper study design
    - presentation of methods
    - results responding to the aim of the study
    - relevant and adequate discussion
    - citation of pertinent literature
  • Formal quality:
    - informative and clear title
    - logical structure (abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions)
    - good statement and language
    - appropriate extent of the paper
    - improvement in tables and figures

Reviewers are free to make detailed comments intended for the author(s) or visible only to the editor. Their general evaluation should include a recommendation to the Editor.

The recommendation can be one of the following:

1. The paper is accepted in its present form.
2. The paper is acceptable with minor revisions, and no further review is requested.
3. The paper may be acceptable after minor revisions but send the revised manuscript back for further review.
4. The paper may be acceptable after major revisions. Further review of the manuscript by the reviewer is automatic unless the reviewer requests otherwise.
5. The paper should be rejected. 

Timeliness in reviewing process is important. Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the reviewer should contact the CROJFE Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer period or a new reviewer should be chosen.


Submitting the Review

Once the evaluation is completed the reviewer should write up and submit his or her report. The report should be submitted through the journal's online review system. 

The reviewer can proceed with this step in two ways. One option is to download manuscript, write comments directly in the manuscript, and when finished enter/upload the entire reviewed version of the paper. The other option is to fill out an evaluation form and write comments online, save as draft upon interrupting review work (without sending to the editor), and when finished submitting (send to the editor) completed review.


Web of Science Impact factor (2022): 3.200
Five-years impact factor: 3.000

Quartile: Q1 - Forestry

Subject area

Agricultural and Biological Sciences