Editor Guidelines

1. Purpose of the Editorial Role

Editors play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, fairness, and integrity of the journal. Their responsibilities go beyond selecting papers for publication. Editors are entrusted with safeguarding the scholarly record, ensuring that peer review is objective and rigorous, supporting authors and reviewers through the editorial process, and upholding ethical publishing standards at all stages of manuscript handling.

An editor must exercise independent academic judgment and make decisions solely on the basis of a manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance to the aims and scope of the journal. Editorial decisions must never be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, commercial considerations, political opinions, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, or any other non-scholarly factor.

Editors are expected to act professionally, fairly, consistently, confidentially, and in accordance with recognized standards of publication ethics.

2. General Principles of Editorial Responsibility

Editors must approach all submissions with impartiality and professionalism. Every manuscript should be given a fair and timely assessment based on objective academic criteria. Editors must ensure that the editorial process is transparent, accountable, and respectful to all participants, including authors, reviewers, and editorial staff.

Editors are responsible for preserving the integrity of the journal by:

  • ensuring that submissions are evaluated only on scholarly merit
  • maintaining confidentiality during and after peer review
  • preventing conflicts of interest from influencing editorial decisions
  • responding appropriately to allegations of misconduct
  • ensuring that accepted papers meet the journal’s scientific and ethical standards
  • correcting the published record where necessary through corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern

Editors should also contribute to the journal’s development by helping maintain consistent editorial standards, identifying emerging topics relevant to the journal’s scope, and supporting high-quality scholarly communication.

3. Editorial Independence

Editors must maintain full editorial independence in their decision-making. This means that manuscript evaluations and publication decisions must be based only on academic and ethical considerations. Editorial judgment must not be influenced by the publisher’s commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, institutional pressures, personal relationships, or external lobbying.

If an editor feels pressured by any party to make a particular decision for reasons unrelated to scientific merit, the matter should be reported internally and handled in a way that protects the journal’s independence and integrity.

Editorial independence is essential for ensuring trust in the journal and confidence in the fairness of its decisions.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment of Submissions

When a manuscript is first submitted, the handling editor should conduct an initial editorial screening before external review. This stage is essential for determining whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed further in the editorial process.

During the initial assessment, the editor should examine whether the manuscript:

  • falls within the aims and scope of the journal
  • is written in acceptable academic English
  • follows the journal’s formatting and submission requirements
  • appears scientifically sound at a basic level
  • demonstrates sufficient originality and potential scholarly value
  • includes the required sections, statements, and metadata
  • raises any immediate ethical or integrity concerns

The editor should also review whether the manuscript appears complete and readable enough for reviewers to evaluate properly. A poorly prepared, clearly out-of-scope, or evidently low-quality submission may be declined at this stage without external review. Such early editorial rejection is appropriate when it prevents unnecessary delay for authors and avoids burdening reviewers with unsuitable manuscripts.

If a manuscript is rejected after initial screening, the decision letter should be respectful, clear, and sufficiently informative.

5. Scope and Suitability Evaluation

Editors must determine whether a submission genuinely fits the scientific focus of the journal. This is not merely a matter of whether a manuscript mentions plants or agriculture. The editor should assess whether the paper makes a meaningful contribution to the fields covered by Plant Science Horizons and whether its intended audience aligns with the journal’s readership.

A manuscript may be technically sound yet still unsuitable for the journal if:

  • the topic falls outside the stated subject areas
  • the work is too narrow or too descriptive without sufficient insight
  • the study has limited novelty for the journal’s audience
  • the manuscript is more appropriate for a journal in another discipline

Editors should make this determination thoughtfully and consistently. Where possible, authors should be given a concise explanation when a manuscript is declined for scope reasons.

6. Assessment of Scientific Quality Before Review

Editors are not expected to perform full peer review themselves at the initial stage, but they should make a reasoned preliminary assessment of the manuscript’s overall scientific quality. This includes considering whether:

  • the research question is clearly defined
  • the study design appears appropriate
  • the methods seem plausible and adequately described
  • the conclusions appear proportionate to the data presented
  • the manuscript reflects a basic understanding of the relevant literature
  • the work appears to offer enough novelty or significance to justify review

A manuscript that is clearly flawed in study design, internally inconsistent, or scientifically trivial may be rejected before peer review. However, editors should avoid substituting their own detailed specialist judgment for independent peer review when the manuscript appears potentially suitable.

7. Plagiarism, Similarity, and Integrity Screening

Editors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are assessed for originality and integrity. Similarity reports generated by plagiarism-detection software should be interpreted carefully and not used mechanically. A similarity score alone does not prove misconduct; editors must examine the nature, location, and context of overlapping text.

Editors should distinguish between acceptable overlap and problematic overlap. Acceptable overlap may include:

  • title page information
  • standard methodological descriptions
  • properly quoted and cited text
  • references and bibliographic content

Problematic overlap may include:

  • unattributed copying of text
  • patchwriting or close paraphrasing
  • reuse of large parts of previously published work
  • redundant publication or duplicate submission
  • self-plagiarism without proper disclosure

If serious concerns arise, the editor should seek clarification from the authors and, where necessary, follow the journal’s misconduct procedures. Editors should not ignore integrity concerns simply because the scientific findings appear interesting.

8. Assignment of Handling Editors

Where the journal operates with multiple editors, manuscripts should be assigned to a handling editor with appropriate subject expertise and no conflict of interest. The assignment should be made in a fair and efficient manner, taking into account expertise, workload, and independence.

A handling editor is responsible for managing the manuscript through peer review, assessing reviewer reports, communicating with the authors, and recommending or making the editorial decision according to the journal’s structure.

Editors should decline to handle a manuscript if they have any relationship or circumstance that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

9. Selection of Reviewers

The choice of reviewers is one of the editor’s most important responsibilities. Editors should select reviewers who have appropriate expertise, a record of responsible scholarly conduct, and the ability to provide fair and timely evaluations.

When selecting reviewers, editors should consider whether the reviewer:

  • has subject expertise relevant to the manuscript
  • is capable of assessing the methods and scientific context
  • is likely to provide constructive and balanced feedback
  • has no apparent conflict of interest
  • is not from the same institution as the authors, where possible
  • has not collaborated closely with the authors recently, where known

Editors should aim for reviewer diversity where feasible, including diversity in geography, institution, and scientific perspective, while prioritizing expertise and fairness.

Editors should avoid repeatedly relying on the same small group of reviewers. Overdependence on a narrow reviewer pool can reduce diversity of judgment and increase editorial bias.

10. Reviewer Invitations and Instructions

Reviewer invitations should be clear, professional, and informative. Editors should ensure that invited reviewers understand:

  • the title and subject area of the manuscript
  • the expected timeframe for review
  • the confidential nature of the review process
  • the double-blind review model of the journal
  • the need to disclose conflicts of interest
  • the criteria they are expected to assess

Editors should provide reviewers with clear review guidance or a review form so that evaluations are structured, useful, and aligned with the journal’s standards. Reviewers should be reminded that their role is not only to judge publishability but also to help improve the manuscript through constructive feedback.

11. Managing the Peer Review Process

Editors are responsible for overseeing peer review in a timely, fair, and organized manner. Once reviewers accept the invitation, the editor should monitor progress and follow up as needed if deadlines are approaching or overdue.

Editors should ensure that:

  • an appropriate number of reviews is obtained
  • reviewer comments are substantive and relevant
  • the tone of reviewer reports is professional and respectful
  • clearly biased, hostile, or unsubstantiated reviews are not relied upon uncritically
  • authors receive a fair summary of the review outcome

If a review is superficial, abusive, clearly biased, or outside the reviewer’s expertise, the editor may disregard it and seek an alternative review. Editors should not simply average opinions; they should evaluate the reasoning and quality of each review.

12. Evaluating Reviewer Reports

Editors must assess reviewer reports critically rather than treating them as automatic instructions. A strong editorial decision depends not only on reviewer recommendations but also on the quality and reasoning of the reports.

In evaluating reviewer comments, editors should consider:

  • whether the reviewer understood the manuscript
  • whether criticisms are supported by evidence or logic
  • whether suggested revisions are reasonable and proportionate
  • whether the reviewer has raised serious methodological or ethical concerns
  • whether the tone is respectful and constructive
  • whether the recommendation is consistent with the arguments made

A recommendation of rejection with weak reasoning may be less persuasive than a revision recommendation supported by detailed and well-founded concerns. Editors must exercise judgment rather than merely count votes.

13. Editorial Decisions

Editors should make decisions that are consistent, evidence-based, and clearly communicated. The main decision types generally include:

  • reject
  • major revision
  • minor revision
  • accept

A decision should reflect the manuscript’s scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal, and the seriousness of the issues raised in review.

Rejection

Rejection is appropriate when the manuscript is outside scope, scientifically weak, methodologically unsound, ethically problematic, or insufficiently novel. Rejection may also be appropriate after peer review if major concerns cannot be resolved through revision.

Major Revision

Major revision is appropriate when a manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes. These may involve reanalysis, clarification of methods, restructuring, deeper engagement with prior literature, or more careful interpretation of results.

Minor Revision

Minor revision is appropriate when the manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited improvements, such as clarifications, additional citations, modest textual revisions, or small presentational corrections.

Acceptance

Acceptance should be reserved for manuscripts that meet the journal’s scholarly and ethical standards and do not require further substantial changes.

Editors should avoid sending a manuscript into repeated cycles of revision without good reason. If the core scientific concerns remain unresolved after one or more revision rounds, rejection may be more appropriate than continued review.

14. Decision Letters to Authors

Editors must communicate decisions clearly, respectfully, and professionally. A decision letter should do more than simply repeat reviewer comments. It should help the authors understand the outcome and the basis for the decision.

A good decision letter should:

  • state the editorial decision clearly
  • summarize the main reasons for the decision
  • distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions where relevant
  • avoid ambiguous or contradictory instructions
  • maintain a respectful and constructive tone

If reviewer comments are being forwarded, editors should ensure they are appropriate for authors to receive. Offensive or unprofessional language should be removed or moderated.

For rejected manuscripts, editors should provide enough explanation to make the decision understandable, while remaining concise and professional.

15. Handling Revised Manuscripts

When a revised manuscript is resubmitted, the editor should assess whether the authors have responded adequately to the comments from reviewers and editors. Authors should normally provide a response letter explaining how each point was addressed.

Editors should evaluate:

  • whether the major concerns were genuinely addressed
  • whether the revised manuscript is improved
  • whether any new issues have emerged
  • whether the revision is suitable to return to reviewers

A revised manuscript should generally be sent back to the original reviewers if the changes are substantial and if their reassessment is needed. However, editors may make the decision themselves when revisions are minor and clearly satisfactory.

Editors should not require authors to implement every reviewer suggestion if some suggestions are unnecessary, unreasonable, or outside the scope of the paper. Editorial judgment is essential.

16. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Conflicts may arise from personal relationships, institutional affiliations, recent collaboration, direct competition, financial interests, or any situation that may affect impartiality.

If an editor identifies a conflict, the manuscript must be reassigned to another editor. Editors should also be alert to possible reviewer conflicts and should replace reviewers where appropriate.

The credibility of the editorial process depends on visible fairness as well as actual fairness. Even the appearance of bias can damage trust in the journal.

17. Confidentiality

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. Manuscripts under consideration must not be disclosed, discussed with unauthorized persons, or used for personal advantage.

Editors must ensure that:

  • reviewer identities remain protected under the double-blind system
  • confidential reviewer comments are handled appropriately
  • unpublished data or ideas in submissions are not used or shared
  • internal editorial discussions remain confidential

Confidentiality continues after the editorial process ends. Editors must not use knowledge gained through manuscript handling for their own research, professional advantage, or the benefit of others.

18. Ethical Oversight

Editors are responsible for recognizing and responding to potential ethical concerns in submitted manuscripts. These may include:

  • plagiarism
  • duplicate submission or redundant publication
  • data fabrication or falsification
  • image manipulation
  • authorship disputes
  • undeclared conflicts of interest
  • lack of ethics approval for human or animal research
  • improper consent procedures
  • citation manipulation

When concerns arise, editors should act carefully, consistently, and confidentially. They should seek clarification from authors where needed, consult internal policies, and follow recognized ethical guidance. Editors should document key steps taken in the assessment of such cases.

Editors must balance fairness to authors with protection of the scholarly record.

19. Research Involving Humans, Animals, or Sensitive Materials

Editors should ensure that manuscripts involving human participants, animal experiments, field sampling, genetically modified organisms, or sensitive materials include the appropriate approvals and compliance statements.

For studies involving humans, editors should look for:

  • approval from a recognized ethics committee or institutional review board
  • confirmation of informed consent where applicable
  • protection of privacy and confidentiality

For studies involving animals, editors should look for:

  • compliance with relevant animal ethics standards
  • justification of the experimental design
  • measures to minimize suffering and unnecessary harm

If the ethical basis of a study is unclear or inadequate, the editor should request clarification or documentation and may reject the manuscript on ethical grounds if concerns remain unresolved.

20. Authorship and Contribution Issues

Editors may encounter concerns regarding authorship, including omitted contributors, guest authorship, ghost authorship, or disputes over author order. Editors should require that authorship changes after submission be justified and supported by agreement from all authors.

Editors should ensure that the journal’s authorship policy is followed and should not permit informal or undocumented changes to the author list at late stages without proper explanation.

Where authorship disputes cannot be resolved through author communication, editors may need to suspend editorial handling until the matter is clarified, and in serious cases may request institutional involvement.

21. Appeals and Complaints

Editors should be prepared to handle author appeals and complaints fairly and transparently. An appeal should be considered when an author provides a reasoned argument that the editorial decision may have been based on misunderstanding, procedural unfairness, or factual error.

Editors should distinguish between disagreement and legitimate grounds for appeal. Not every rejected author is entitled to a full reopening of review, but serious procedural concerns should be assessed carefully.

Complaints may also concern delays, reviewer behavior, editorial tone, or ethical issues. These should be handled respectfully, documented appropriately, and escalated where necessary.

22. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the published record. If a published paper is found to contain significant error, unreliable findings, or evidence of misconduct, appropriate post-publication action may be necessary.

Corrections

A correction should be issued when the published article contains an error that affects clarity, accuracy, or record integrity but does not invalidate the main findings.

Retractions

A retraction should be considered when the findings are unreliable due to major error or misconduct, when there is plagiarism or duplicate publication, or when the paper seriously violates ethical standards.

Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when serious questions have been raised but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a correction or retraction, for example during an ongoing investigation.

Editors should ensure that such actions are clearly documented, transparent, and proportionate to the issue.

23. Communication with Reviewers

Editors should treat reviewers respectfully and professionally. Reviewers contribute essential scholarly labor, and good reviewer relations are important for sustaining journal quality.

Editors should:

  • provide clear instructions and realistic deadlines
  • acknowledge reviewer contributions
  • avoid unnecessary delays
  • inform reviewers of major outcomes where appropriate
  • maintain confidentiality and professionalism in all communication

Editors should also monitor reviewer performance over time and avoid repeatedly inviting reviewers who provide poor-quality, consistently late, or biased reports.

24. Communication with Authors

Editors should communicate with authors in a respectful, professional, and constructive manner at all times. Even when rejecting a manuscript, the tone of communication should remain courteous and fair.

Editors should avoid dismissive, sarcastic, or hostile language. Communication should be timely, informative, and as clear as possible. Authors should be given enough information to understand editorial decisions and the next steps where applicable.

Editors represent the journal, and their communication style directly affects the journal’s reputation.

25. Timeliness and Editorial Efficiency

Editors are expected to handle manuscripts in a timely manner. Unnecessary delay can disadvantage authors, frustrate reviewers, and weaken confidence in the journal.

Editors should aim to:

  • complete initial screening promptly
  • invite reviewers without undue delay
  • follow up on overdue reviews
  • issue editorial decisions as soon as enough information is available
  • avoid leaving manuscripts inactive without explanation

Timeliness should never come at the expense of quality or fairness, but efficient editorial management is an essential professional responsibility.

26. Editorial Consistency

Editors should work toward consistency in standards and decisions across the journal. Similar manuscripts should be handled according to similar principles. While each case requires judgment, inconsistent editorial thresholds can confuse authors and undermine confidence in the journal.

Consistency can be supported by:

  • clear editorial policies
  • shared internal standards
  • regular communication within the editorial team
  • documentation of procedures and precedents

Editors should also be willing to reflect on their own decision-making and adapt when policies evolve or when better practices are identified.

27. Role of the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for the journal’s editorial standards, decision framework, and publication integrity. This role includes oversight of manuscript handling, editorial consistency, ethical investigations, reviewer and editor performance, and post-publication corrections or retractions.

The Editor-in-Chief may delegate handling of individual manuscripts but remains responsible for the journal’s overall editorial quality and ethical compliance. The Editor-in-Chief should also support training, policy development, and strategic direction for the editorial team.

28. Role of Associate Editors or Section Editors

Associate Editors or Section Editors assist in manuscript handling within their fields of expertise. Their responsibilities may include initial assessment, reviewer selection, evaluation of reviews, communication with authors, and editorial recommendations.

They must follow the same standards of impartiality, confidentiality, ethical oversight, and professional communication as the Editor-in-Chief. They should also consult senior editorial leadership when faced with complex ethical or procedural issues.

29. Relationship with the Publisher

Editors should work cooperatively with the publisher while maintaining editorial independence. The publisher may support technical systems, production, archiving, dissemination, and policy implementation, but must not control scientific decisions.

Editors should ensure that the publisher’s operational role does not interfere with the journal’s academic standards or ethical responsibilities.

30. Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Editors should remain committed to improving editorial practice over time. This includes staying informed about developments in publication ethics, peer review, reproducibility, transparency, and responsible research assessment.

Editors are encouraged to support:

  • fairer and more constructive peer review
  • stronger ethical oversight
  • better communication with authors and reviewers
  • improved editorial workflows
  • consistency with international best practices in scholarly publishing

A strong editorial culture is not only about gatekeeping; it is about fostering credible, responsible, and high-quality scholarly communication.

31. Final Principle

Editors of Plant Science Horizons are entrusted with a position of academic responsibility. Their decisions shape the journal’s reputation, influence scientific communication, and affect the careers of researchers. Accordingly, editors must act with integrity, fairness, diligence, independence, and respect for the scholarly record at all times.

The journal expects all editors to uphold these principles consistently and to contribute actively to a transparent, ethical, and rigorous editorial environment.