Peer Review Model
The Journal of Plant Biota adopts a single-blind peer review model, meaning that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to the authors, but authors’ identities are disclosed to the reviewers. All accepted articles (except for certain Editorials released by the Editors) undergo a rigorous review process to evaluate their novelty, scientific contribution, methodological integrity, and academic quality.
Peer Review Process
Each submission undergoes an initial screening by the Managing Editor and the Academic Editor:
· The Managing Editor verifies the manuscript’s suitability for the journal’s scope, checks formatting, and conducts a plagiarism check using iThenticate.
· If the manuscript passes this initial screening, the Academic Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board member/Guest Editor) evaluates whether the manuscript qualifies for full peer review.
· If the Academic Editor determines that the manuscript lacks sufficient quality or relevance to the journal, it is rejected without further review.
· Manuscripts deemed suitable are assigned to expert reviewers in the field for a detailed evaluation.
Review Process & Reviewer Selection
Peer reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:
· They are independent of the authors and their institutions.
· They possess subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript.
· They have recent publications in the same research area.
· They can complete the review within the required timeframe.
Each manuscript requires at least two external review reports comprising detailed comments and an overall recommendation:
· Accept – Suitable for publication with no further revisions.
· Minor Revision – Requires slight modifications before acceptance.
· Major Revision – Needs substantial revisions and reevaluation.
· Reject – Not suitable for publication due to major flaws or lack of originality.
In some cases, more than two review reports may be required:
· When two initial reports have conflicting recommendations.
· When the Academic Editor deems additional evaluations necessary for decision-making.
Special Cases
Manuscripts from Editorial Board and Guest Editors
· These manuscripts are handled independently by other editors to maintain transparency and fairness.
· The submitting editor does not participate in the review process or decision-making.
Special Issue Manuscripts
· Special issue manuscripts (both invited and uninvited) must meet the same review standards as regular submissions.
· The Editor-in-Chief oversees content quality and supervises Guest Editors handling the special issue.
Author-Suggested Reviewers
Authors may suggest potential reviewers with expertise relevant to their manuscript. However, the journal retains the discretion to accept or reject these suggestions. Suggested reviewers must:
· Have a recent publication record in the field.
· Have no recent co-authorship or institutional affiliation with any author.
· Not be a current or past collaborator of any author.
· Not have any personal or financial conflicts of interest with the authors.
Authors should provide suggested reviewers’ names, email addresses, research areas, institutions, and ORCID IDs (if available).
Notes for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers must adhere to the following guidelines:
· Conflicts of Interest: Declare any potential conflicts before accepting the review assignment. If a conflict exists, they should withdraw from the review.
· Confidentiality: Reviewers must not share manuscript details or discuss the review with others without prior permission from the editors.
· Manuscript Handling: Reviewers must destroy all copies of the manuscript after submitting their reports.
· Objective Evaluation: Provide an unbiased and constructive assessment, regardless of the author’s nationality, institution, or personal attributes.
· Ethical Concerns: Alert the editorial office of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical misconduct.
· Citation Ethics: Do not request authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless scientifically justified.
· Timely Submission: Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the designated timeline (typically 14 days). If an extension is needed, they should inform the editorial office in advance.
Editorial Responsibilities
Managing Editor
· Conducts initial screening (scope, formatting, and plagiarism check).
· Assigns suitable reviewers and facilitates communication among authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.
Academic Editor
· Determines whether the manuscript qualifies for peer review.
· Oversees the peer review process and evaluates review reports.
· Makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
· The Academic Editor’s name appears on the published paper.
For further details, please refer to the Peer Review Guidelines and Editorial Process of the Journal of Plant Biota.
Before Reviewing
Reviewers should familiarize themselves with the Journal of Plant Biota‘s Aims and Scope, as well as these peer review guidelines.
· If a reviewer finds that the assigned manuscript falls outside their area of expertise, they should inform the editorial office promptly. If possible, they may also recommend alternative reviewers.
· Reviewers are expected to submit their review reports within the stipulated timeframe. If additional time is required, they should request an extension from the editorial office as early as possible.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Conflicts of Interest
The Journal of Plant Biota aims to avoid potential conflicts of interest in the peer review process. Reviewers should:
· Declare any conflicts of interest (e.g., affiliation with the authors’ institution, prior collaboration, or personal relationships).
· Recuse themselves if they believe a conflict of interest may affect their impartiality.
· Notify the editorial office if they believe a conflict exists but can still provide an objective review. The editorial team will assess whether a different reviewer is needed.
Confidentiality
· Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its content as strictly confidential.
· Unpublished data from the manuscript must not be used for personal research or shared with third parties.
· If assistance is needed from a colleague, reviewers must seek permission from the editorial office. All contributors to the review will be recorded in the journal’s records and appropriately acknowledged.
Anonymity
The Journal of Plant Biota follows a single-blind peer review model:
· The identities of reviewers remain anonymous to the authors.
· Reviewers should avoid revealing their identity in review reports.
· If a reviewer wishes to disclose their identity, they must consult the editorial office, which will manage any “un-blinding.”
Unbiased Evaluation
Reviewers should provide an objective and fair evaluation, irrespective of the author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political beliefs, or other personal attributes. Commercial considerations should not influence the review process.
Misconduct
Reviewers should immediately notify the editorial office if they suspect:
· Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
· Data fabrication, manipulation, or other breaches of research ethics.
· Any form of academic misconduct that compromises research integrity.
Rating Standards of Peer Review
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
1. Novelty
· Does the manuscript present new findings, methods, or insights?
· Does it contribute to the advancement of plant science research?
2. Significance
· Is the topic relevant and timely?
· Does the study have substantial implications for the field?
3. Scientific Soundness
· Is the research well-designed and methodologically sound?
· Are the data and analyses appropriately conducted?
· Can the findings be reproduced based on the information provided?
4. Clarity of Presentation
· Is the manuscript well-structured and free from grammatical errors?
· Are tables, figures, and graphical elements accurate and informative?
· Does the conclusion effectively summarize the key findings?
5. Language
· Is the English language used in the manuscript clear and understandable?
Review Report
Reviewers’ comments play a crucial role in publication decisions and manuscript improvement. The review report should include:
1. A detailed assessment of the manuscript’s novelty, significance, scientific rigor, clarity, and language, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.
2. A final recommendation, choosing one of the following:
· Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication with no revisions.
· Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before acceptance.
· Major Revision: The manuscript needs significant revisions (e.g., additional data analysis, restructuring, or improved discussion).
· Reject: The manuscript has serious flaws, lacks originality, or does not align with the journal’s scope.
If reviewers wish to evaluate the revised version, they should indicate this in their report.
Recognition for Reviewers
The Journal of Plant Biota acknowledges the valuable contributions of reviewers through:
· Annual Reviewer Recognition: Acknowledgment of dedicated reviewers in the journal.
· Reviewer Recognition Certificate: A certificate issued for each completed review.
· Publons Registration: Reviewers are encouraged to register their peer reviews on Publons for verified acknowledgment.
· ORCID Integration: Reviewers are encouraged to link their Publons profile with ORCID for tracking and recognition of their review activities.
For further details, please refer to the Peer Review Policy, Editorial Process, and Guest Editor Guidelines of the Journal of Plant Biota.