International Journal of Agricultural Economics (ijae)

International Journal of Agricultural Economics (IJAE)

Manuscript Review Form
Instructions to Reviewers:
All materials submitted to IJAE for consideration are confidential, and should not be distributed, shared, used or otherwise supplied to third parties prior to publication.
Please tell the Editors if there is any conflict of interest in reviewing of the paper.
Please respond within the allotted time so that we can give the authors timely responses and feedback.

Article Number:	2321619
Article Title:	The Role of Fruit-Vegetable Cluster-Cooperative in Ensuring Food Security in Uzbekistan

1. 
   Assessment of the article:
   

Please evaluate the quality of the article from the following aspects (and rate them from "Excellent" to "Poor".

Review items	Excellent	Good	Moderate	Poor	Bad
The title is specific and reflects the main ideas of the article.
The abstract clearly presents objects, methods and results.
The literature review and significance of the article are explained clearly.
The research study methods are sound and appropriate.
The conclusions or summary are accurate and supported by the content.
References are up-dated, adequate and correctly cited.
The structure is compact, sequential and logical.

2. 
   Overall Recommendation (tick one of the following levels):
   

   Accepted, no revision needed.
   Accepted, minor revisions needed.
   Return for major revision and resubmission
   Reject

3. 
   Comments and Suggestions to the Author(s):
   

Please provide an overall evaluation of the manuscript briefly (100-200 words): For the manuscripts that cannot be published, please specify the inadequacies.

In my opinion, the paper is good on the whole. Generally speaking, the content of this paper is relatively sufficient, and the author has done sufficient preparation and work on this topic. To be specific, the purpose and significance of the study are clearly stated. The paper develops in a logical way with clear structure. The analysis also goes in deep and to the point. However, there are still some parts that need to be modified in the paper. The author is advised to make some revisions so that the paper will be better.

Please provide reasons for acceptance or rejection as well as any suggestions that you might feel are appropriate for revisions or improvements. Perspectives: title, abstract, literature review, research methods, figures, tables, language efficiency, structural logic, innovation points, etc.

We have carried out a similarity check for your manuscript and the similarity index is 40% (the highest single-source score is 19%). It means 40% of your text is found same or similar to some sources in the comparison databases. Please ensure you have properly cited the original source. You are advised to make some revisions according to the attached similarity report, especially the content overlapping with the first two sources. The information of your affiliation should be composed of the 4 parts “Department/Faculty, University/Institute, City, Country”. For example: Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Cambridge, the United States Please check and revise. The professional title and rank should be deleted. It is suggested that the “Abstract” should be organized more logically, including the background, objective, method, result and conclusion. And the number of words of the “Abstract” should be at least 200 but no more than 400. Please check and revise. The keywords should be 3-8 words/phrases that indicate the main research field, main research methods, important data names or main research objects. Please check and revise. According to the journal’s publishing standards, all headings must be numbered successively. We have corrected them. Please check and confirm. The contents in the Conclusion section are actually recommendations. Please revise the title and give a conclusion of the main findings of the study. There are 15 references in the References list, but we just find 7 in-text citations. Please ensure each reference in the References list should have at least one corresponding in-text citation. Please check and cite the rest of the references ([8]-[15]). The non-English title, abstract and keywords have been deleted. Please check and confirm. We have revised the footnotes into endnotes and put them at the end of the paper. Please check and confirm.

Confidential Comments (if any):
Note that any comments in this section will not be shown to the authors.

Authors’ Feedback of Reviewer’s Work

Specific evaluation to the Reviewer’s review result	Rating Result [Poor] 1-5 [Excellent]