1. Purpose and General Principles

The Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian (JP3) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Politeknik Pembangunan Pertanian Yogyakarta–Magelang. Its scope includes agricultural extension, rural development, farmer empowerment, smart farming, and agribusiness innovation. Reviewers are expected to assess submitted manuscripts fairly, independently, and constructively to support the quality, reliability, and integrity of published research. These principles are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must conduct their evaluations according to professional and ethical standards, respect the confidentiality of the review process, disclose potential competing interests, and provide assessments based on the scientific merit of the manuscript rather than personal preferences or the identity of its authors. See the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2. Reviewer Selection and Acceptance of Review Invitations

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls within their area of expertise and they can provide a competent, impartial, and timely assessment. Reviewers should provide accurate professional information and disclose any limitations that may affect their ability to evaluate the submission. This follows the recommendations in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should promptly inform the handling editor if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot complete the review within the specified deadline, or identify circumstances that could compromise their impartiality. If declining an invitation, reviewers may suggest alternative experts when appropriate. Guidance on reviewer responsibilities is available in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

3. Confidentiality of Manuscripts

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or discuss any part of a manuscript with unauthorized individuals without prior permission from the editor. The confidentiality principle is set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, methods, findings, or other information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or commercial advantage. The manuscript must not be used to advance the reviewer's own research or to disadvantage the authors. These expectations are consistent with the confidentiality and intellectual-property principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts or associated materials to external generative artificial intelligence systems or other third-party services when doing so could expose confidential content or violate the journal's policies, applicable data-protection requirements, or the rights of the authors. Reviewers must remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of their evaluations. For related ethical guidance, consult the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

4. Conflicts of Interest and Impartiality

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their evaluation. Such interests may include financial relationships, personal relationships, professional collaborations, institutional affiliations, academic competition, or disputes with the authors. The reviewer should notify the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the reviewer can proceed impartially, in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must assess the manuscript on its academic quality and relevance, not on the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, academic status, or other irrelevant considerations. If impartial review cannot reasonably be maintained, the reviewer should decline the invitation or withdraw from the review and inform the editor. See the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

5. Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, clear, and constructive. Reviewers should explain the reasoning behind their assessments and provide specific suggestions that help authors improve the manuscript. Personal attacks, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported accusations are unacceptable. These standards reflect the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns that affect the validity, originality, or contribution of the research and minor issues involving presentation, terminology, formatting, or language. Recommendations for revision should identify the relevant section, explain the problem, and indicate how the authors might address it. The review should support a fair editorial assessment in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

6. Scope and Relevance to the Journal

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is relevant to JP3's stated focus on agricultural extension, rural development, farmer empowerment, smart farming, and agribusiness innovation. They should consider whether the research question and findings contribute meaningfully to knowledge, practice, or policy in the journal's subject areas. The journal's scope can be consulted on the official JP3 website; the ethical basis for assessing manuscripts within an appropriate review framework is described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

7. Scientific Quality and Methodological Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate the clarity and significance of the research objectives, the appropriateness of the research design, the adequacy of the methods, the transparency of data collection and analysis, and whether the conclusions are supported by the findings. They should also consider whether limitations, uncertainties, and alternative interpretations have been appropriately acknowledged. These evaluations should be conducted objectively and constructively in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

For research related to agricultural extension and rural development, reviewers may consider the relevance of the study to farmers, extension workers, rural communities, agricultural institutions, and other intended beneficiaries, where applicable. They should assess whether the methods and conclusions are appropriate to the research question and whether the practical implications are justified by the evidence. This subject-specific assessment is intended to apply the journal's stated scope, available on the JP3 website, within COPE's general principles for ethical peer review.

Reviewers should examine whether tables, figures, statistical analyses, references, and supplementary materials are sufficiently clear and consistent with the claims made in the manuscript. Any apparent inconsistencies, unsupported interpretations, or methodological weaknesses should be explained specifically to help the authors respond. Reviewers should provide reasoned assessments rather than unsupported conclusions, as recommended by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

8. Research Ethics and Publication Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor to concerns about possible plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, undisclosed competing interests, or other potential research-integrity issues. Concerns should be explained with relevant evidence or examples wherever possible, and reviewers should avoid making unsubstantiated allegations. The journal should handle such concerns according to its publication-ethics procedures and the relevant COPE Core Practices.

Where relevant to the study, reviewers should consider whether the manuscript adequately addresses research ethics approval, informed consent, participant or community protection, animal welfare, and other applicable ethical requirements. If documentation or clarification appears necessary, reviewers should raise the issue with the editor rather than assume that approval was or was not obtained. This approach is consistent with the publication-integrity framework described in the COPE Core Practices.

Reviewers should not independently contact the authors, their institutions, research participants, or other parties to investigate suspected misconduct unless explicitly authorized by the editor. Potential ethical concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editor so that the journal can assess and manage them appropriately. See the COPE Core Practices for the journal's responsibility to maintain appropriate procedures for publication-ethics concerns.

9. Citations, References, and Originality

Reviewers should assess whether the references are relevant, sufficiently current for the topic, and accurately connected to the statements they support. They may recommend additional literature when it is genuinely necessary to improve the manuscript's scholarly context, but must not demand citations merely to increase their own citation counts or those of colleagues, journals, or institutions. Reviewers should raise concerns about inappropriate citation manipulation with the editor, consistent with the COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

10. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers should complete and submit their reports within the deadline communicated by the editor. If additional time is needed, they should inform the editor as early as possible and request an extension rather than allow the review to remain pending without explanation. Timely and clear communication is among the responsibilities described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should communicate with the editor through the journal's designated submission system or other authorized channels. Questions about the manuscript, review process, competing interests, or potential ethical concerns should be raised promptly and confidentially so that the editor can determine the appropriate next steps. These practices support clear communication and accountable peer review as described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

11. Review Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers should provide a reasoned recommendation to the editor using the options available in the journal's review system. Depending on the options provided by JP3, these may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The recommendation must be supported by the comments in the review report and should reflect the manuscript's quality, relevance, methodological soundness, originality, and ethical acceptability, consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should clearly separate comments intended for the authors from confidential comments intended only for the editor. Confidential comments should be limited to information relevant to the editorial decision or matters that should not be disclosed directly to the authors, including sensitive concerns about potential misconduct. Reviewers should ensure that confidential comments do not contradict the substantive feedback provided to the authors. These practices are consistent with the principles of fairness and responsible communication in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers provide expert advice; the final decision on whether to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript rests with the journal's editor in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures. Peer-review policies should transparently explain who conducts reviews, the review model, and how editorial decisions are made, as described in the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

12. Review of Revised Manuscripts

When invited to assess a revised manuscript, reviewers should focus on whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive comments from the previous review round. If a response is incomplete or a significant concern remains unresolved, reviewers should identify the issue clearly and explain why further revision may be necessary. Feedback should remain objective, proportionate, and constructive in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should not introduce new requirements at a later stage without a reasonable scientific or ethical justification. New concerns may be raised when they emerge from the revision or are necessary to assess the validity and integrity of the work. The purpose of the review process is to support a fair and transparent editorial assessment, consistent with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

13. Reviewer Misconduct and Concerns About the Review Process

Reviewers must not misuse confidential information, deliberately delay a manuscript to gain a personal advantage, pressure authors to cite irrelevant work, disclose confidential review material without authorization, or allow undisclosed competing interests to compromise their evaluation. Potential breaches of these responsibilities may be reported to the editor or journal management for appropriate assessment under the journal's applicable procedures and the COPE Core Practices.

Reviewers who believe that a manuscript raises serious ethical concerns, or who experience a problem that may compromise the fairness of the review, should communicate the matter to the editor through an authorized channel. The journal should handle such reports carefully and in accordance with its applicable publication-ethics procedures, informed by the COPE Core Practices.

14. Acknowledgment and Review Records

Reviewers should maintain appropriate professional records of their review activities while respecting manuscript confidentiality and the journal's applicable data-retention requirements. Any acknowledgment of reviewer contributions must follow the journal's stated policy and must not reveal reviewer identities where anonymity is required. The journal's review model and the handling of reviewer identities should be explained transparently in accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

15. Commitment to Ethical Peer Review

By accepting a review invitation from Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian, reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines, protect the confidentiality of the review process, disclose relevant competing interests, and provide a fair, evidence-based, and timely evaluation. These expectations are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices.

These guidelines should be read together with JP3's published journal policies, manuscript-submission requirements, and peer-review procedures. The journal should ensure that its actual review model, deadlines, decision categories, and confidentiality arrangements are accurately described on its official website, consistent with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.