Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is an important process within scientific publishing that allows to guarantee to a great extent the quality and relevance of the manuscripts that are presented for publication, for this reason it must be carried out with the greatest possible care and responsibility.

Duties of reviewers:

• Contribution to the editorial decision

• Haste

• Confidentiality

• Objectivity

• Disclosure of conflicts of interest

The evaluation process for the articles that are presented to the Revista Peruana de Investigación Agropecuaria is "double blind", assigning peer reviewers who are specialists of recognized suitability in the subject, in which both reviewers and authors do not know their identities. Evaluators review articles for quality, originality, relevance, and make technical judgments about possible publication.

After verifying that the subject of the submitted article is within their area of ​​expertise, the reviewer has one month, counted from the receipt of the article, to submit their evaluation of the manuscript, in order not to lengthen the selection process. too much.

The evaluators must carry out their exercise in an impartial and confidential manner and are completely free to communicate possible conflicts to carry out the evaluation, whether due to academic, work or personal conflicts of interest, in relation to the article that they are asked to evaluate.

To carry out the evaluation, the peers have a form that is given to them together with the article, to facilitate their reading and response on the relevance and possible publication of the article. With the help of the evaluation format, the peer reviewer can deliver their opinion under one of the following alternatives:

• Recommends the article as it is presented (Accept without modifications).

• The article can be accepted after raising the observations described in the written evaluation report (Accept with modifications).

• The article is not accepted for publication (Reject).

• Someone other than me as reviewer must review the article before it is accepted (Send to another reviewer).

Manuscript Evaluation Form

The evaluation protocol for manuscripts to be evaluated by external peer reviewers refers to the rubric detailed below.

Parameter evaluated	Evaluation (YES/NO)
Originality of the manuscript
The research is original, current and relevant.
The title is innovative and encompasses the research presented in the document.
The summary highlights the most relevant points of the work, includes a brief summary of the main conclusions reached, without covering all of them.
The manuscript presents the current state of the problem (Related works or State of the art), by including the most relevant similar studies and highlighting their approaches, pros and cons.
In the manuscript, it correctly indicates what the research consists of, the proposed objectives, background and hypotheses.
Manuscript rigor
The Methodology precisely describes the procedure carried out during the design, experimentation and verification of the hypothesis. Timely introduces and specifies the resources, materials and methods used in each part of the process.
The results are conclusive and are consistent with the objectives and hypotheses of the article.
The Discussion interprets the results obtained, correlating them with other related works. List the advantages of the study and its contributions, as well as the difficulties encountered.
The bibliographical references are relevant, up-to-date and sufficient.
Clarity of the manuscript
The manuscript is clearly written in such a way that it is easy to follow and understand.
The figures and tables are of good quality and contribute to a better understanding of the subject. Every figure and table is correctly introduced and explained in the text.
Manuscript Relevance
The Conclusions respond to the objective of the study. They raise perspectives and the applicability of the results.
The manuscript contributes to the state of the art in an appropriate way.

Once the reviewer has assessed the parameters established in the format, he may issue his observations, suggestions and comments that justify the assessment made. Finally, the reviewer may suggest, based on the evaluation, if the submitted manuscript classifies in one of the aforementioned categories.

Once the results of the peer review have been received, the Editorial Committee of the journal analyzes the responses and, considering the comments of the peer reviewers and the associate editor, makes decisions on the publication of the article.

The Editorial Committee of the REPIA clarifies that not all the evaluation results of an article must coincide in terms of the recommendations; therefore, it is the Editorial Committee who, based on all the observations, makes the final decision on the publication or not of the article.