Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model
The Plant Science Archives adopts a single-blind peer review model. This ensures that reviewers’ identities remain anonymous to authors, while authors’ identities are visible to reviewers. All accepted articles (except for certain editorials released by the Editors) undergo a rigorous review process to evaluate their novelty, scientific quality, academic integrity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Peer Review Process
Each submission to Plant Science Archives undergoes an initial evaluation conducted by the Managing Editor and the Academic Editor. The Managing Editor performs a plagiarism check and assesses the manuscript for suitability within the journal’s scope and adherence to format guidelines. Manuscripts passing this initial check are forwarded to the Academic Editor, who ensures there are no conflicts of interest and decides if the manuscript proceeds to peer review.

If the Academic Editor determines that the manuscript lacks sufficient quality or relevance, it will be rejected without further evaluation. Manuscripts deemed appropriate for review are sent to qualified experts in the relevant field for thorough evaluation.

Selection of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and experience in the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on their significance, novelty, scientific integrity, and presentation. Reviewers are required to provide a constructive report within 14 days of accepting the invitation to review. A minimum of two external review reports, containing detailed comments and an overall recommendation (“Accept,” “Minor Revision,” “Major Revision,” or “Reject”), is required for each manuscript.

Additional reviewer reports may be requested under the following circumstances:

  • When two initial reports have conflicting recommendations.

  • When the Academic Editor deems additional expertise necessary for decision-making.

Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members or Guest Editors
Submissions by members of the Editorial Board or Guest Editors are handled independently to ensure impartiality. The submitting editor is not involved in the review or decision-making process.

Authors Suggesting Reviewers
Authors may suggest potential reviewers with the relevant expertise for their manuscript. Suggested reviewers must meet the following criteria:

  • Have a recent publication record in the manuscript’s research area.

  • Have no recent publications or collaborations with any authors.

  • Share no institutional affiliation with any authors.

  • Have no financial or personal conflicts of interest with the manuscript’s authors or content.

Authors should provide the reviewers’ names, email addresses, institutions, ORCID IDs (if available), and areas of expertise. While the journal values author suggestions, the final decision to invite these reviewers rests with the editorial team.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers must:

  • Declare any conflicts of interest before commencing the review. If a conflict exists, they should withdraw from the process.

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process.

  • Destroy copies of the manuscript after submitting their review.

  • Provide objective and unbiased evaluations, disregarding factors such as nationality, gender, or other characteristics of the authors.

  • Report any suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate publication) to the editorial office.

  • Avoid requesting authors to cite their own work unless it is academically justified.

  • Submit review reports promptly or request an extension if necessary.

Roles and Responsibilities

Managing Editor
The Managing Editor is responsible for the initial manuscript check, including evaluating scope suitability, format integrity, and conducting plagiarism checks via iThenticate. They also identify suitable reviewers and facilitate communication among authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.

Academic Editor
The Academic Editor oversees the review process, including assessing whether a manuscript qualifies for peer review and making the final decision to accept or reject based on review reports. The Academic Editor may be the Editor-in-Chief, another Editorial Board member, or a Guest Editor as designated by the Editor-in-Chief.

The Academic Editor’s name will be published alongside the paper once it is accepted.

Ethical Guidelines

We are a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and strictly adhere to their guidelines for ethical peer review practices. This includes maintaining confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, and ensuring that reviewers provide fair and constructive feedback.

For further information, please refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. These guidelines help safeguard the integrity of the peer review process and ensure the highest standards of ethical conduct.

For additional information on the peer review process, please refer to the Peer Review Guidelines of the Plant Science Archives.