Zemljiste i Biljka (Soil and Plant) journal considers all manuscripts on the strict condition that they have been submitted only to Zemljiste i Biljka, and not been published already, nor under consideration for publication or in press elsewhere, except a brief abstract in the proceedings of a scientific meeting or symposium.

NOTE: Journals have encountered an increase in plagiarism and other unethical publishing practices in recent years. We therefore ask that all reviewers keep this in mind when reviewing the paper.

Please answer all questions and place all confidential comments for the Editor at the end of the questionnaire in the ‘Confidential Comments to Editor’ box. Place all comments for the author in the ‘Blind Comments for Author’ box.

Contact of Reviewer

General Judgement

Is this paper acceptable for publication? *

Reviewer Confidential Comments to Editor

Please answer YES or NO to the following, based on your best judgment and belief:

1. Does the paper contain new science? *
2. Does the paper explain clearly the new science versus current knowledge? *
3. Is the paper written in standard, grammatically correct English? *
4. Are the figures of good quality? *
5. Does the paper include sufficient data? *
6. Does the paper have structure (introduction, experiment, results and discussion, etc.)? *
7. Does the paper have environmental monitoring or assessment applications? *
8. Does the paper have analytical quality control? *
9. Is the paper essentially a repetition of already published data/papers, with no new insights? *
10. Does the paper contain up-to-date references? *
11. Does the paper employ the correct experimental replication and statistical analysis, where needed? *
12. Does the paper include clear descriptions and explanations of the experimental design, essential sample characteristics and descriptive statistics, hypotheses tested, exact references to the literature describing the tests used in the manuscript, number of data involved in statistical tests, etc.? *
13. Does the paper contain data coming from an incorrectly designed experiment or the statistical analysis, where needed, that is faulty or insufficient? *
14. Are the theories, concepts, conclusions, etc. sufficiently supported by data/information? *
15. Is there enough information to permit repetition of the experimental work? *
16. Is the paper methodologically sound? *

Upload your file(s) below. Extension supported: pdf, doc, docx, zip

Choose File
Thank you! Review has been sent.
ERROR - Please check again.