“The measurements were taken over two years and the data pooled”, and with this statement the author likely gets into trouble. Climate change is a real thing felt worldwide. To assume that data taken in two consecutive years will not be affected by environmental conditions is likely going to lead to misrepresentation of the data. The fix for the problem is simple. The data are to be subjected to an analysis of variance with year as a variable. If the results indicated that the variable year is not significant then the data can be pooled. If there is significance for the variable yield then the data are going to have to be presented to reflect the effect of year in a table or figure. This can lead to opportunities where it becomes possible to speculate on why the differences occurred. To elaborate on the possibilities the environmental data can be placed in a table and conclusions drawn. It is possible that there is no weather station present in the field in which the experiment was conducted. However, it is in very limited conditions that there is not a source of weather data for the location. Governments maintain weather data, as do commercial media that report the weather. It is unlikely that a request from a scientist will be turned down. Even if it is and there is no possibility of obtaining weather data the effect, if significant, is still present and will need to acknowledged with the proviso that “the reasons for the differences between years needs more study.”
In a related vein one of the points that causes me consternation when not handled correctly, and to the author when it is pointed out, is the idea that measurement within a year should be treated as a variable. Consider this. An experiment is established in a field and at some point the data is collected, sometimes from the same plant, at different times. In the interim there are activities that occurred, irrigation, weeding, precipitation, application of pesticides. The point could be made that these are occurring to all plants, and in most instances that is correct. An example of something that varies with the experimental design could be the application of pesticides. However, even if the extraneous application have occurred to all plants there is still the concept of age. Plants like all less than immortal beings age and over time, even if only the growing season, they change both physically and physiologically. There is a point when the hormones shift from supporting vegetative development to when they support reproductive development. The point being is that there will be changes and these changes could be influenced by what happens between the times data is taken. Differences in time must be considered when the data is analyzed. I am aware that there are places a manuscript can be sent for consideration for publication that does not enforce the same interpretation of data analysis, presentation and interpretation. Those places are wrong to accept the data if not properly analyzed. Every time I will make the point concerning time and the manuscript will be sent back for correction.
Reviewers of submitted manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I want to extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meet the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: Z. Abou el Nour, D. Ademe, I. Adeoye, A. Baliu, D. Cantliffe, A. Chatterjee, R.K. Dubey, J. Fagbayinde, S. Farshid, Y. Gedamu, P. Hazra, S.Z. Hussain, S.R. Kumar, A. Layade, C. Miles, A. Polamuri, A. Srivatava, and H. Taie.