AGRAARTEADUS

The general purpose of your review is to assist the editors in evaluating the worthiness of this manuscript for publication, and to help the author(s) make improvements to the manuscript. Please consider in your comments on the following aspects:

In case of additional comments don’t write these on this sheet but use the referee evaluation sheet on the next page. If the answers in some point(s) are negative, please give clear arguments.

Manuscript number: 
Title: 
Author(s): 

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWER
		Yes	No	See comments	
1. 	Does the title of the paper clearly reflect its contents?				
2.	Is the abstract clear and sufficient covering all the most important points?				
3.	Does the introduction state the scientific problem clearly?				
4.	Is the description of materials and methods sufficiently informative to allow replication of the experiment?				
5.	Is the manuscript discussion successful, are the references adequate?				
6.	Are the experimental results sufficient to justify the conclusions?				
7.	Does the paper make a significant new contribution to the advancement of knowledge or towards a better understanding of existing concepts?				
8.	Is the content of the manuscript acceptable and article structured in agreement with instructions to authors?				
9. 	Is the number of figures and tables appropriate and their quality adequate?				
10.	Are the statistical methods used correctly and adequately?				
11.	Does the English language require improvement?				
12.	Has the author published this research before?				
13.	Has the author plagiarized another publication?				
14.	Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/ consent been obtained?				
15.	Is there any indication that the data has been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?				
16.	Have the authors declared all relevant conflict of interests?				

Recommendation to the Editorial Board
Manuscript is suitable for publication:		
	Accept without modification		
	Accept with revision, but returning to the referee is not required		
	Accept with revision, but returning to the referee is required		
	After major revision by the author(s) can be considered as a new submission		
Manuscript should be rejected:		
	Article scientific content is too general		
	Article contains disadvantages in experimental design or interpretation of results is not correct		
	The essential findings have already been published		
	Results are presented in the way as their significance is not clear		
	Article subject is not suitable to the current journal		

Comments (if more space is needed please continue on a separate sheet)

_________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your assistance!