Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Plant Science Horizons (PSH) values peer reviewers as essential contributors to scientific quality, editorial fairness, manuscript improvement, and ethical scholarly publishing.

1. Role and Importance of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Their role is not only to assess suitability for publication but also to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work.

2. Acceptance of Review Invitations

  • Accept only within your expertise
  • Provide fair and informed evaluation
  • Complete the review within the deadline
  • Decline promptly if unavailable

3. Confidentiality

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential
  • Do not share or discuss manuscripts
  • Do not use unpublished data or ideas
  • Maintain confidentiality after review

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts that may influence judgment.

  • Personal or professional relationships
  • Recent collaboration
  • Institutional affiliations
  • Financial or commercial interests
  • Direct research competition

5. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

  • Evaluate only scientific merit
  • Avoid personal criticism
  • Provide respectful feedback
  • Support comments with reasoning
  • Use professional language

6. Evaluation Criteria

Originality and Novelty

Assess whether the work provides new and meaningful scientific contribution.
Scientific Soundness

Evaluate study design, methodology, controls, replication, and statistical analysis.
Data Quality

Check whether data presentation is clear and conclusions are supported.
Clarity and Organization

Assess structure, logic, writing quality, and readability.
Journal Relevance

Consider fit with the scope and readership of Plant Science Horizons.

7. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should remain alert to possible ethical concerns and inform the editor confidentially when needed.

Plagiarism or unattributed overlap
Duplicate publication
Data fabrication or falsification
Image manipulation
Missing ethics approval

8. Structure of the Review Report

Summary

Briefly summarize the manuscript and its main contribution.
Major Comments

Discuss important scientific, methodological, or interpretive issues.
Minor Comments

Address clarity, grammar, formatting, and small corrections.
Recommendation

Provide a clear recommendation consistent with the review comments.

9. Reviewer Recommendation Options

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided.

10. Timeliness of Review

Reviewers should complete evaluations within the requested timeframe, typically 2–4 weeks, and inform the editor promptly if delays are expected.

11. Recommendations to Authors

  • Be clear and specific
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses
  • Suggest improvements
  • Avoid vague statements

12. Confidential Comments to Editor

  • Ethical concerns
  • Suitability for publication
  • Reviewer confidence
  • Concerns not suitable for author comments

13. Use of AI and External Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential content into external tools or platforms that may compromise confidentiality.

14. Re-review of Revised Manuscripts

  • Evaluate responses to comments
  • Check whether revisions improve the manuscript
  • Identify remaining concerns

15. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

  • Acknowledgment lists
  • Review certificates
  • Editorial board consideration for active reviewers

16. Final Responsibility

Reviewers contribute significantly to the integrity of scientific publishing. Reviewers for Plant Science Horizons are expected to uphold fairness, objectivity, confidentiality, professionalism, and constructive scholarly engagement.