Reviewer's Evaluation Form
Review of Agricultural Economics

Manuscript No.: ______
Title: ______________________________________________
Reviewer No.: ______
Instructions: Reviewers are asked to use this form to evaluate articles submitted to the Review of of Agricultural Economics. In addition, on a separate page, reviewers should provide a separate set of written comments that can be returned to the author(s).

Summary Comments:
General Recommendation Regarding Publication:
1. Please Check one of the following:

  • Article is acceptable without revision
  • Article is not acceptable, but minor revisions needed can be
    checked by editors without returning it to me
  • Article is not acceptable: significant revisions are needed.
    I encourage a revision incorporating my suggestions
  • Reject article: It does not warrant continuation of the review process

    2. How well written is the article?
  • Exceptionally well written
  • Well written. Minor edits are needed
  • Could use some major edit work
  • Very poorly written.

    A major goal of the Journal is to publish articles that will be widely read by subscribers.

    3. What percentage of Journal subscribers will likely read this article?
  • 80 - 100 %
  • 60 - 80 %
  • 40 - 60 %
  • 20 - 40 %
  • 5 - 20 %
  • Almost no one

    4. What do you believe will be the likely reasons some subscribers WILL read this article. Check all that apply.
  • Subject matter is of interest to these readers
  • Controversial and likely correct
  • Controversial (but wrong in places)
  • Provocative
  • Article is easy to read and does not require specialized technical understanding
  • The flow of the writing is good enough to draw the reader into the article
  • Other(s)
    (Specify)_____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
    5. What do you believe is the likely reasons some subscribers WILL NOT read this article.
    Check all that apply
  • Subject matter is not of interest to these readers
  • Controversial, and mostly wrong
  • Dull and boring
  • Article is difficult to read, using terminology familiar only to a small portion of the subscribers
  • The flow of the writing is difficult to follow
  • Writing is weak from the perspective of grammar and syntax
  • The title is inconsistent with the content
  • Other(s)
    (Specify)_____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

    6. Some suggestions to the author that would improve this manuscript include (check all that apply):
  • Redraft to improve the organzational structure and flow of the writing
  • Get help from a technical editor to improve grammar and syntax
  • Choose terms and phrases that can be understood by a wider audience
  • Rework sections that are wrong, that is, inconsistent with sound economic logic or empirical evidence
  • Try to make the approach to the topic less dull and boring!
  • Tone down controversial statements not supported by citations or other evidence
  • Needs a better, more descriptive, title
  • Other(s)
    (Specify)_____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

    PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH YOUR LETTER AND COMMENTS TO EITHER

    Angelos Pagoulatos or David L. Debertin
    editors, Review of Agricultural Economics
    Department of Agricultural Economics
    400 Ag. Engineering Bldg.
    University of Kentucky
    Lexington, Kentucky 40546-0276
    Pagoulatos (606) 257-3482
    Debertin (606) 257-7258
    FAX for either (606) 323-1913

    Back to the Journal Home Page