Peer Review Record

Manuscript ID: JOSTA-202606-C82D

Article Title: Optimal Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertiliser Rates for Maximising Food Barley Productivity in the Highlands of North Gondar, Ethiopia

Double-anonymous review Accepted

Review Summary

Item	Details
Submission Date	08 June 2026
Editorial Screening	Completed
External Reviewers	2
Review Rounds	1
Revision Type	Major Revision
Final Decision	Accepted
Acceptance Date	03 July 2026

Editorial Assessment

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant problem in Ethiopian highland agronomy by determining site-specific nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser recommendations for food barley. Reviewers judged the research problem clearly defined and well aligned with both scientific and practical needs, and considered the methodology appropriate, though requiring clearer presentation. Data quality was rated good, while the interpretation of results and the connection between results and conclusions required strengthening. The manuscript was assessed as offering a meaningful, well-targeted contribution to the field, grounded in solid field data from six sites over two cropping seasons. Presentation and language required major revision, with reviewers requesting thorough proofreading and improved sentence flow throughout. Reviewers requested major revisions concerning nomenclature and unit conventions, fertiliser composition detail, soil phosphorus-fixing behaviour, reference list ordering, economic (benefit:cost) reporting, justification for crop selection, and overall clarity of the Introduction, Results, and Discussion sections. The authors satisfactorily addressed all comments, after which the manuscript was accepted for publication.

Review Timeline

Submission Received

08 June 2026

Manuscript submitted through the JOSTA submission portal.

Editorial Screening Completed

12 June 2026

Manuscript passed preliminary editorial checks.

Peer Review Initiated

13 June 2026

Two independent reviewers accepted the review assignment.

Reviewer Reports Received

20 June 2026

Reviewers recommended publication following major revision.

Revised Manuscript Received

30 June 2026

Authors submitted a revised version addressing reviewer concerns.

Final Decision

03 July 2026

Accepted for publication.

Published Online

08 July 2026

Article published in Volume 2, Issue 3.

Key Issues Addressed During Revision

Reviewer concerns are summarised by category. Specific comments and author responses are confidential.

Category	Nature of Concern	Status
Nomenclature & Units	Standard chemical notation for phosphorus dose (P₂O₅) to be used consistently, including in Keywords, in place of non-standard "P O" formatting	✓ Addressed
Methodology – Fertiliser Composition	Nutrient (N-P-K) content of the fertiliser sources used (TSP and urea) to be stated explicitly in Materials and Methods	✓ Addressed
Soil Characterisation	Clarification requested on whether the Cambisol soils at the experimental sites exhibit phosphorus-fixing capacity, relevant to interpreting P response	✓ Addressed
Reference List Formatting	Chronological ordering (oldest to most recent) of multiple citations by the same author to be rechecked and corrected	✓ Addressed
Economic Analysis	Benefit:cost (B:C) ratio for the recommended fertiliser combination to be explicitly reported alongside the partial budget analysis	✓ Addressed
Rationale for Crop Selection	Justification requested for the specific choice of food barley as the study crop	✓ Addressed
Introduction Clarity	Rationale for undertaking the study and the research gap to be stated more explicitly, including clearer framing of the site-specific knowledge gap and study objective	✓ Addressed
Results Presentation	Section heading, cropping-season references, and terminology (e.g. superlative usage) revised for precision; ambiguous statements clarified, including comparison with previously recommended P rates	✓ Addressed
Discussion & Results Integration	Overlap between Results and Discussion reduced; interpretive depth expanded, with Results and Discussion considered for combined presentation to improve continuity	✓ Addressed
Language & Clarity	Thorough proofreading and grammatical correction throughout the manuscript to improve flow and sentence structure	✓ Addressed

Peer Review Statement

Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture (JOSTA) employs a double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually confidential throughout the review and publication process. Reviewer reports and correspondence are not published.

Voluntary reviewer disclosure. JOSTA respects reviewers' autonomy regarding attribution. A reviewer who wishes to be identified in the published article may notify the editorial office at any point before final acceptance. Upon written consent, the reviewer's name and affiliation will be acknowledged in the Publication & Reviewer Details section of the article. Reviewers who do not provide consent remain anonymous and are listed as Anonymous. This policy is strictly voluntary; no reviewer is under any obligation to disclose their identity.

This page provides a transparent summary of the editorial and peer-review process in accordance with JOSTA's open-science commitments. It does not constitute a full disclosure of reviewer comments or author responses.