Reviewer Guidelines

1. Role and Importance of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. The peer review process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring that only research of high quality, originality, and relevance is published.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Their role is not only to assess the suitability of a manuscript for publication but also to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work.

Reviewers should approach each manuscript with professionalism, impartiality, and respect for the authors’ efforts.

2. Acceptance of Review Invitations

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should carefully consider whether they are able to provide a competent and timely review.

A reviewer should accept an invitation only if:

  • the manuscript falls within their area of expertise
  • they can provide a fair and informed evaluation
  • they have sufficient time to complete the review within the requested deadline

If a reviewer feels unqualified or unable to complete the review in time, they should decline the invitation promptly so that alternative reviewers can be assigned without delay.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • not share the manuscript with others without permission from the editor
  • not discuss the manuscript with colleagues or third parties
  • not use unpublished data, ideas, or findings for personal research or advantage

Confidentiality must be maintained both during and after the review process. Any breach of confidentiality is considered a serious violation of ethical standards.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.

Conflicts may arise from:

  • personal or professional relationships with the authors
  • collaboration with the authors within recent years
  • institutional affiliations
  • financial or commercial interests
  • direct competition in the same research area

If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review or notify the editor immediately. Transparency is essential to ensure fairness in the review process.

5. Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based solely on its scientific merit, without bias related to the authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal background.

Reviewers must:

  • avoid personal criticism of the authors
  • provide constructive and respectful feedback
  • support their comments with clear reasoning
  • focus on improving the manuscript

The tone of the review should remain professional at all times. Harsh, dismissive, or offensive language is unacceptable.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on several key aspects:

Originality and Novelty

The reviewer should determine whether the manuscript presents new and significant findings. The work should contribute meaningfully to the existing body of knowledge and should not simply replicate previous studies without added value.

Scientific Soundness

The reviewer should evaluate whether the study design, methodology, and analysis are appropriate and scientifically valid. This includes assessing whether:

  • the research question is clearly defined
  • the experimental design is appropriate
  • the methods are described in sufficient detail
  • the statistical analysis is correct and adequate

Data Quality and Interpretation

The reviewer should assess whether the data are presented clearly and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. The reviewer should also identify any inconsistencies, missing data, or potential misinterpretations.

Clarity and Organization

The manuscript should be well-structured, logically organized, and clearly written. The reviewer should evaluate whether the arguments are coherent and whether the manuscript is understandable to the intended audience.

Relevance to the Journal

The reviewer should consider whether the manuscript fits within the scope of Plant Science Horizons and whether it is of interest to the journal’s readership.

7. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should remain alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript.

These may include:

  • plagiarism or unattributed text overlap
  • duplicate publication
  • data fabrication or falsification
  • inappropriate image manipulation
  • lack of ethical approval for human or animal research

If any ethical concerns are identified, the reviewer should inform the editor confidentially and provide supporting details where possible.

8. Structure of the Review Report

A good review should be structured, clear, and informative. Reviewers are encouraged to organize their report into sections:

Summary

A brief summary of the manuscript and its main contributions, demonstrating that the reviewer understands the work.

Major Comments

Detailed comments on significant issues affecting the scientific quality of the manuscript. These may include concerns about methodology, data interpretation, novelty, or structure.

Minor Comments

Comments on smaller issues such as clarity, grammar, formatting, or minor corrections.

Recommendation

A clear recommendation to the editor, which may include:

  • accept
  • minor revision
  • major revision
  • reject

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided.

9. Timeliness of Review

Timely reviews are essential for maintaining an efficient editorial process. Reviewers should aim to complete their evaluations within the requested timeframe, typically 2–4 weeks.

If a reviewer anticipates delays, they should inform the editor as soon as possible. If a review cannot be completed, the reviewer should decline promptly to avoid delaying the process.

10. Recommendations to Authors

Reviewers should aim to provide feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript.

Comments should:

  • be clear and specific
  • identify both strengths and weaknesses
  • provide suggestions for improvement
  • avoid vague or overly general statements

The goal is to enhance the quality of the manuscript, not merely to criticize it.

11. Recommendations to the Editor

In addition to comments for the authors, reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor. These may include:

  • concerns about ethical issues
  • recommendations regarding suitability for publication
  • comments on reviewer confidence

These comments should not contradict the main review without explanation.

12. Use of AI and External Tools

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

If AI tools are used for language assistance, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their evaluation.

13. Re-review of Revised Manuscripts

If invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have adequately addressed previous comments.

The reviewer should:

  • evaluate the response to comments
  • check whether revisions improve the manuscript
  • identify any remaining concerns

14. Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

The journal values the contributions of reviewers and may provide recognition through:

  • acknowledgment lists
  • certificates of review
  • editorial board consideration for active reviewers

15. Final Responsibility

Reviewers contribute significantly to the integrity of scientific publishing. Their assessments influence editorial decisions and help shape the quality of published research.

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of:

  • fairness
  • objectivity
  • confidentiality
  • professionalism