Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (JANR) is dedicated to publishing high-quality original research and review articles on the various discipline of agriculture. The main objective of JANR is to serve as a platform for the national and international scholars, academicians, researchers, and extensionists to share the innovative research findings in agricultural fields. The JANR is an online open access international, peer reviewed and official journal published annually by Prithu Technical College, Lamahi Municipality Ward -3, Bangaun, Deukhuri Dang, Nepal.

Focus and Scope
The scopes of Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources include, but are not limited to, the following fields of Agricultural Ecology, Agricultural economics, Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural extension, Agronomy, Animal Science and Veterinary, Aquaculture and fisheries, Conservation agriculture, Entomology, Environment Science, Food Science, Forestry Science, Genetic engineering, Horticulture, Irrigation Science, Land use and waste management in agriculture, Microbiology, Plant Biotechnology, Plant Breeding and genetics, Plant Pathology, Production Ecology, Sociology of agriculture, Agricultural chemistry, Soil Science, Scientific publication, Scientific writing and communication in agriculture and natural resources.

Publication Frequency

Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources published first issue in 2018. The journal publishes one issue per year. The publication month is January (in 2020 and onwards). 

Tribhuvan University, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Prithu Technical College, Dang, Nepal

Complaints Policy

Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources takes each complaint seriously and handles it. The complainant issue is checked and acted upon. All complaints will be acknowledged immediately if made by email or telephone. Final decisions are conveyed to the complainant. The Journal holds awareness of the complaints in terms of Authorship complaints, Plagiarism, Duplicate, multiple, concurrent publication, Misappropriation of Research results, Allegations of research errors and fraud, Violations of Research standards, Undisclosed conflicts of interest, Reviewer bias, or acts of harm out of the competition by reviewers. This journal adopts the COPE’s policies and guidelines to address the complaints. For making complaints, kindly provide your query to

Digital Preservation Policy 

Website Archiving: All published contents are available on the publisher's website

Abstracting/Indexing Services: The journal has been indexed in many Abstracting/Indexing services that store much essential information about the articles. These services archive not only the metadata about the article, but the electronic versions of the articles, as well. Therefore, copies of the articles are available to the scientific community through their systems.

Self-archiving: Authors may archive the final published version of their articles in personal or institutional repositories immediately after publication.

If the journal stops publishing: The publisher intends and expects to continue to publish the journal for a very long time. If due to some rare, unfortunate circumstances, the publisher is forced to stop publishing the journal, the manuscripts published in the journal will be kept online and accessible to the readers for at least 10 more years. This journal has been indexed in NepJOL.


Google Scholar
DOAJ-Directory of open access journals
CAB Abstracts (CABI)
Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB)
IP Indexing
WRLC Catag
Academic Resource Index
Electronic Journals Library


Universities E-Library Databases
Columbia University Libraries
Iowa State University Libraries
UC Berkeley Library
Universities E-Library Databases
University of Edinburgh Library
Western Sydney University Library
University of New Mexico Library
York University Library
Gent University Library
University of Toronto Libraries
Purdue University Library
Harvard Library
University of Minnesota Catalog
Nelson Mandela University Library
RMIT University Library
British Library
Rhodes University Library  
Pennstate University Libraries
Portland State University Library
Latrobe University Library
Georgia UGA Libraries
Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
Asian Digital Library

Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Peer review process
Normally review process takes more than one month. For peer review process usually two or more, independent reviewers, were selected by the editors. The Reviewers treat the review process as being strictly confidential. Immediately after getting reviewer comments/suggestions manuscripts are sent to authors for improvement of their article. Reviewer are invited by editor-in-chief or editors through request made via email. Reviewers come from national or international territory. Reviewers are assigned to review articles in their own particular field of expertise. The editors make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice. 

Authors are welcome to suggest potential reviewers; however, it is the editor’s decision whether or not to honor such requests. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staffs, only those papers that seem most likely to meet editorial criteria are sent for formal review. This journal reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct. 

Reviewer Guidelines
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources is a peer-review journal, we perform the quality control for submitted manuscripts by the refereeing process. We are very grateful to our Reviewers for the time and effort they spend evaluating manuscripts for this journal.

Here are some ethical and peer review guidelines that help reviewer to conduct their peer review.

While preparing the reports, Referees are asked to describe the quality of the manuscript according to the following criteria. 

Originality of work; has not been published elsewhere in any medium by the authors or anyone else and is not under consideration for publication in any other medium.

  • Scope of the journal
  • Methods of investigation
  • English language
  • Backup reading: references

Short Notes should meet the key standards listed above and additionally should report high quality new work of such importance that merits urgent publication and should be likely to make significant impact on the current research in the relevant area. If ,however a contribution is not justified to be handled via rapid channel it may be considered as a research paper, probably after expansion or revision.

Review Articles should contain the most significant results of the subject under review. All reviews for this journal should be accurate scientifically, should describe the most relevant and recent contributions, the subject matter should be discussed competently and the choice of citations should be adequate and should not overlook important contributions of other workers.

General Expectations
While preparing the reports, we ask our Referees to:

  • comment on the originality of the presented work,
  • comment on whether the manuscript presents the most recent literature on the topic discussed,
  • evaluate the authors’ experimental or theoretical approach to the discussed problem(s),
  • evaluate the reliability of the results and validity of the conclusions,
  • comment on technical aspects of the paper, such as the statistical analyses,
  • inform us whether we should consider the manuscript further and what should be done in order to make it publishable (if that is possible),
  • describe the significance that the work has for the scientific community,
  • please, DO NOT put your name, affiliation or address in the review

Please note that accepted papers will undergo language editing by native English speakers. Incorrect grammar, style or punctuation should not constitute sufficient reason to reject a paper if it is still intelligible for the reviewer and its content warrants publication from a scientific point of view.

Double-blind peer review guidelines
For this journal that uses double-blind peer review, the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.

Please therefore ensure that the following items are present in your submission and are provided as separate files:

Title Page
The title page will remain separate from the manuscript throughout the peer review process and will not be sent to the reviewers. It should include:

  • The manuscript title
  • All authors’ names and affiliations
  • A complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address
  • Acknowledgements
  • Conflict of interest statement

Anonymised manuscript
Please remove any identifying information, such as authors’ names or affiliations, from your manuscript before submission.

As well as removing names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, other steps need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review. The key points to consider are:

  • Use the third person to refer to work the authors have previously published. For example, write ‘Jha and Subedi (2015) have demonstrated’ rather than ‘we/the authors have previously demonstrated.
  • Make sure that figures and tables do not contain any reference to author affiliations
  • Exclude acknowledgements and any references to funding sources.
  • Use the title page, which is not sent to reviewers, to detail these and to declare any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor.

Conducting the Review
The JANR is peer review journal. Peer review is the collaborative process that allows manuscripts submitted to a journal to be evaluated and commented upon by independent experts within the same field of research. Upon receipt, manuscripts are assessed for their suitability for publication by the editorial staff. Only the manuscripts meeting the journal’s general criteria for consideration are sent out for review. Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the articles should not be disclosed to a third party.

Peer-review publication policies
All contributions submitted to this journal that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor’s decision on the choice of referees is final.

Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise declared as a part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicized without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

The publisher reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.

Reviewers should check the following parameters;

  • Articles are of outstanding scientific importance
  • Adherence to the instruction to authors
  • Complete organization of articles
  • Appropriateness of title and abstract
  • Appropriateness and adequacy of methodology
  • Appropriateness of figures and tables
  • Relevance of discussion
  • Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
  • Appropriateness of referencing

Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

  • Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
  • Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
  • Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or method.
  • Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
  • Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.
  • Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
  • Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.

Finally, on balance, when considering the whole article, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

Previous Research
If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Ethical Issues

  • Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible
  • Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor. Whether it contains ideas and language without properly crediting the sources?
  • Other ethical concerns:Do you have any financial conflict with the authors of the manuscript? Are the author accept the conditions to keep the used data at least for 3 years safe after the publication of the data?

The reviewers should reject the manuscripts if they observed below faults;

Mismatch with the journal

  • The manuscript does not make a contribution to new knowledge in the discipline or the application of knowledge
  • Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal
  • Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership
  • Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal

Flaws in study design

  • Poorly formulated research question
  • Choice of a weak or unreliable method
  • Choice of an incorrect method or model
  • Inappropriate statistical analysis
  • Unreliable or incomplete data
  • Inappropriate or sub optimal instrumentation
  • Small or inappropriately chosen sample

Poor writing and organization

  • Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem studied
  • Inadequate description of methods
  • Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them
  •  Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study
  •  Insufficient literature review
  • Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data

Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

  •  Failure to follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors
  • Sentences that are not clear and concise
  • Title, abstract are not persuasive
  • Wordiness and excessive use of jargon
  • Poor grammar or spelling mistakes
  • Poorly designed tables or figures

After reviewing the manuscripts carefully the reviewers should make their recommendations as below;

  1. Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope
  2. Accept without revision
  3. Accept but needs revision (either major, moderate or minor)

In the latter case, clearly identify what revision is required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised articles.

During the manuscripts evaluation process, the reviewers should follow and fulfill the “Review Form” and it should be sent to editorial office along with  revised manuscripts.


Recognition for Reviewers
Reviewers are key to the success of journal and its wider community. This is why the publisher seeks to recognize the efforts of reviewers. The ways reviewers currently receive recognition can include:

  • Being included in a journal’s reviewers list in each issue of the journal. This is the most common form of recognition.
  • Getting a letter or certificate of contribution from the journal editors and publisher

The publisher has created a certificate of recognition to serve as a formal acknowledgment of a reviewer’s role in the peer-review process of a journal. Reviewers can request the certificate from publisher contact. A reviewer confirmation letter is also available upon request. Click link to view a sample   Reviewer Certificate.

Reviewer Acknowledgements
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources would like to acknowledge the following reviewers for their assistance with peer review of manuscripts for this issue. Their comments and suggestions were of great help to the authors in improving the quality of their papers. Each of the reviewers listed below returned at least one review for this issue.

Reviewers for Volume 2 (1), 2019 and 3(1), 2020

Dr. Basant Acharya
Asst. Professor
Far Western University, 
Faculty of Agriculture Sciences,
Tikapur, Kailali

Mohammad Mehdizadeh, PhD (Weed Science)
Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agronomy and Plant Breeding,
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

Manoj Pokhrel
Plant Protection Officer
Plant Qurantine and Management Centre
Hariharbhawan, Lalitpur, Kathmandu

Samaya Gairhe
Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Singhadurbar Plaza, kathmandu, Nepal

Jeevan Lamichhane
Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Regional Agricultural Research Station,
Khajura, Nepalgunj, Banke

Yadav Padhyoti
Senior Agriculture Economist
Department of Agriculture, Government of Nepal
Hariharbhawan, Lalitpur

Krishna Aryal
Asst. Professor
Tribhuvan University, Prithu Technical College,
Deukhuri, Dang, Nepal

Bal Krishna Joshi, PhD
Senior Scientist, National Genebank, 
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Shree Prasad Vista, PhD
Senior Scientist (Soil Science)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council,
Soil Science Division
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Subarna Sharma, PhD Scholar
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Breeding,
TU, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science
Lamjung Campus, Lamjung, Nepal
Email: subarna

Dr Madhab Pandey
Dairy Development Corporation
Animal Feed Production Plant
Hetauda, Makawanpur, Nepal

Raj Kumar Giri
Scientist, Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Horticulture Research Station, Rajhikot, Jumla, Nepal

Nabaraj Acharya
Scientist, Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Regional Agricultural Research Station, Khajura, Banke, Nepal

Jiban Shrestha
Scientist (Plant Breeding and Genetics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Agricultural Botany Division,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Krishna Prasad Timsina, PhD
Senior Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
SARPOD, Khumaltar, Nepal

Surya Prasad Adhikari
Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
SARPOD, Khumaltar, Nepal

Deepa Devkota
Scientist (Agricultural Economics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
SARPOD, Khumaltar, Nepal

Subash Subedi, PhD
Senior Scientist (Plant Pathology)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
National Maize Research Program,
Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal

Tek Prasad Gotame, PhD
Senior Scientist (Horticulture)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Horticulture Research Division,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Yug Nath Ghimire, PhD
Senior Scientist & Chief,
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
SARPOD, Khumaltar, Nepal

Mahesh Subedi
Scientist (Plant Breeding and Genetics)
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Agricultural Botany Division,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal

Basan Shrestha
Socioeconomist, M & E Specialist
CAMRIS International, USAID’s MEL Project 
Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal

Shankar Raj Barsila, PhD
Assistant Professor 
Agriculture and Forestry University
Faculty of Animal Science, 
Veterinary Science and Fisheries Department of Animal Nutrition 
and Fodder Production Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal

Neena Amatya Gorkhali, PhD 
Senior Scientist 
Nepal Agricultural Research Council
Animal Breeding Division,
Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal