Reviewer Guidelines

These guidelines are designed to ensure that all submissions to the Indian Journal of Soil Conservation (IJSC) are evaluated rigorously, fairly, and constructively, in line with best practices in publishing scientific advancements in the field of sustainable management of land and water resources.

  1. Scope and Mission

The Indian Journal of Soil Conservation (IJSC) publishes original research articles, reviews, short communications, and technical notes on all soil and water conservation aspects. The journal focuses on integrating research findings with practical applications to promote sustainable management of land and water resources. Submissions must be relevant to soil and water resources conservation and may include topics like erosion control, watershed management, soil fertility, and related fields.

  1. Types of Manuscripts
  • Original Research Articles: These should report novel findings and make substantial contributions to the field. The manuscript should be comprehensive, including an abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and references.
  • Review Articles: Review articles should provide critical overviews of recent advances and developments in soil and water conservation. Reviews should be comprehensive, include extensive references, and may identify future research directions.
  • Short Communications: Brief reports on new findings that are significant but do not require a full-length article. They should be concise, usually not exceeding 3,000 words.
  • Technical Notes: These are shorter, focused papers reporting new methodologies, techniques, or case studies. The format is flexible but must include an introduction, methods, and results sections.
  1. Role of a Reviewer
  • Ensure scientific quality: Assess the manuscript for originality, sound methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field.
  • Maintain confidentiality: Keep all information about the manuscript and the review process confidential.
  • Provide constructive feedback: Offer detailed, respectful, and unbiased comments to help authors improve their work.
  • Declare conflicts of interest: Disclose any conflict (personal, financial, or professional) that may affect objectivity.
  • Timely review: Submit the review within the stipulated deadline (usually 2–3 weeks).
  1. Evaluation Criteria
  2. Title and Abstract
  • Is the title concise, specific, and informative?
  • Does the abstract clearly summarize objectives, methods, key results, and conclusions?
  1. Introduction
  • Is the problem clearly stated?
  • Are objectives or hypotheses clearly defined?
  • Is the context appropriately set with relevant literature?
  1. Materials and Methods
  • Are the methods scientifically sound and replicable?
  • Are study sites and experimental designs clearly described?
  • Are statistical tools appropriate and correctly applied?
  1. Results
  • Are the results clearly presented and logically organized?
  • Are tables and figures relevant, appropriately labeled, and well-designed?
  • Is there duplication of data between text and tables/figures?
  1. Discussion
  • Are interpretations logical and supported by data?
  • Are findings compared with previous research?
  • Are limitations addressed?
  1. Conclusions
  • Are conclusions well-supported and not overstated?
  • Are policy or practical implications clearly outlined?
  1. References
  • Are references current, relevant, and properly cited?
  • Is the formatting consistent with IJSC guidelines?
  1. Ethical Considerations
  • Plagiarism: Indicate any suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication.
  • Data Integrity: Report any concern regarding data fabrication or manipulation.
  • Authorship Concerns: Alert the editor to any suspected authorship malpractice.
  1. Reviewer’s Report Structure

A typical review report should include:

  1. Summary: A brief synopsis of the manuscript highlighting its objectives and significance.
  2. Major Comments: Detailed comments on scientific validity, originality, and major areas needing revision.
  3. Minor Comments: Issues like typographical errors, unclear sentences, or minor formatting inconsistencies.
  4. Recommendation: Choose one of the following:
  • Accept without changes
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

Reviewer may also include confidential remarks to the editor if needed.

 

  1. Best Practices
  • Be objective and fair: Focus on the manuscript’s content, not the authors’ identity or affiliations.
  • Be constructive: Even if recommending rejection, provide feedback that helps the author improve.
  • Be specific: Reference line numbers or sections when commenting.
  • Be consistent: Align comments with your final recommendation.

 

  1. Recognition and Benefits
  • Acknowledgement in the journal or website
  • Certificate of appreciation upon request
  • Consideration for editorial board positions based on performance
  • Opportunity to stay abreast of latest research in the field
  1. Communication and Support

All communication should be through the IJSC Editorial System or directly with the Chief Editor. For any issues, clarifications, or suggestions, reviewers are encouraged to reach out at [email protected].

  1. Confidentiality and Data Handling
  • Do not share, use, or retain any part of the manuscript.
  • Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone unless authorized by the editor.
  1. Updates and Feedback

These guidelines are periodically updated. Reviewers are encouraged to provide feedback to improve the review process and contribute to the overall quality of the journal.

Thank you for your service and commitment to advancing soil and water conservation research through rigorous and thoughtful peer review.