Guidelines for Reviewers


Guidelines for reviewers of papers to be published in Scientific Journal of Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Problems of World Agriculture


Reviews constitute a very important element of research, providing not only an objective verification of quality of presented results and outcomes, but also indicating potential for improvements in terms of applied methodology, presented interpretations or technical aspects of a given study. A helpful reviewer needs to:

(I) objectively evaluate the originality and importance of the study presented in the manuscript;

(II) assess validity of the selection and description of the applied research methods;

(III) based on their merit evaluate the quality of conducted and presented research results and outcomes;

(IV) evaluate the standard of formal and technical manuscript preparation (requirements).


These elements are presented in the form of 15 specific requirements in the structured review form template, in which these requirements are assigned ranks from 1 (the worst) to 5 (the best). Thus:

  • rank score (1) means that a given criterion has not been met,
  • rank score (2) means that significant changes need to be introduced within a given aspect,
  • rank score (3) means that small changes need to be introduced in relation to a given criterion,
  • rank score (4) means that small corrections are needed within a given aspect,
  • rank score (5) means that a given criterion has been fully met.

Additionally, space is provided for detailed comments. In the case of a manuscript considered acceptable or requiring only small improvements the reviewer needs to provide a brief commentary describing the significant contribution of the study to the development of science together with suggestions concerning small improvements if needed. If the manuscript requires considerable modifications or should be rejected, the reviewer’s comments need to be univocal and concise.

When making the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript the reviewer needs to consider the rank scores for the 15 criteria. When rank scores of 4 and 5 predominate in the review, it indicates that the manuscript is fit to print in the presented form or requires only minor changes. Manuscripts with a high number of ranks scores 1 and 2 need to be rejected. In the case of a large number of criteria with rank scores 2 or criteria with rank scores 3 the reviewer needs to indicate that the manuscript requires major corrections.

Reviewers are obligated to observe the ethical principles.