Peer Review Process

Plant Science Horizons (PSH) uses a structured editorial and peer-review process to evaluate scientific validity, originality, methodological rigor, reporting quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal. Research and other externally reviewed article types are normally assessed under a double-blind peer-review model by at least two independent reviewers.

Purpose of peer review at PSH

Peer review supports editorial decision-making by providing independent expert assessment of the scientific work. The process is intended to identify strengths, limitations, methodological concerns, reporting deficiencies, unsupported claims, and opportunities to improve the manuscript before publication.

Peer review does not transfer responsibility for publication decisions to reviewers. The handling editor evaluates the complete record, including reviewer reports, manuscript quality, author responses, ethical considerations, and journal policy.

Review route depends on article type

Original Research Articles, Short Communications, and Methods / Technical Advances normally undergo external double-blind peer review. Review Articles and Mini Reviews undergo external scholarly peer review. Perspectives are normally externally reviewed.

Commentaries, Spotlights, Letters, and Editorials may undergo editorial assessment and, when the scientific claims warrant it, additional external expert review. Detailed article-type review routes are defined in the journal's Section Policies.

Protecting author and reviewer identities

Double-blind review reduces some sources of identity-related bias but does not eliminate the need for active conflict-of-interest management, professional reviewer conduct, and independent editorial judgment.

Preparing the manuscript for double-blind review

Authors should submit an anonymized main manuscript and a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, corresponding-author details, ORCID identifiers, and other identifying information.

• Remove author names and affiliations from the main manuscript.
• Avoid acknowledgments or statements that unnecessarily reveal identity during review.
• Refer to the authors' own previous work in the third person where possible rather than using wording that explicitly reveals authorship.
• Remove identifying document metadata where practical.

Submission completeness before scientific assessment

The editorial office may check:

Scientific screening before external review

An Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for external review. This assessment may consider:

• Fit with PSH Focus & Scope.
• Originality and scientific relevance.
• Experimental or analytical rigor.
• Adequacy of replication and statistics.
• Quality of presentation and interpretability.
• Evidence supporting the principal conclusions.
• Publication-ethics and research-integrity requirements.

Similarity screening and other integrity checks

Manuscripts may be screened with Turnitin or another similarity-detection system and may also be assessed for duplicated publication, inconsistent data, inappropriate image manipulation, citation problems, authorship issues, or other integrity concerns.

Similarity reports are interpreted by editors in context; PSH does not rely on one automatic percentage threshold as the sole basis for deciding whether plagiarism has occurred.

Manuscripts may be declined before external review

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it is clearly outside scope, lacks sufficient scientific advance, has fundamental methodological weaknesses, is inadequately supported, is substantially incomplete, does not meet journal standards, or presents major unresolved ethical or integrity concerns.

Desk rejection is an editorial decision and is not evidence that external peer review was conducted.

Assignment to an editor with relevant expertise

Manuscripts proceeding beyond initial assessment may be handled by an Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor. The handling editor manages reviewer selection, evaluates reports, oversees revisions, manages conflicts, and makes or recommends the editorial decision according to journal governance.

Expertise and independence

Reviewers are selected primarily for relevant scientific or methodological expertise and their ability to provide an independent assessment.

• Relevant publication or research expertise.
• Appropriate knowledge of the methods or study system.
• Absence of conflicts likely to compromise impartiality.
• Capacity to review within the requested timeframe.
• Professional identity that can be reasonably verified.

Protecting the integrity of reviewer identity

Editors may verify reviewer identity and expertise using institutional email addresses, ORCID records, publication history, institutional profiles, recognized scholarly databases, or other appropriate professional information. Fabricated reviewer identities, impersonation, manipulated reviewer suggestions, or peer-review rings are prohibited.

Conflicts of interest must be disclosed

Reviewers should decline or consult the editor when financial, institutional, collaborative, supervisory, personal, competitive, or other interests could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Disclosure does not always require exclusion; the handling editor determines whether the relationship is compatible with independent review.

Normally at least two independent reviewers

Research articles and other externally reviewed manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. An editor may seek additional review when specialist expertise is required or when reports differ substantially.

A manuscript is not accepted or rejected by simple reviewer vote; the editor evaluates the quality and substance of the reports.

What reviewers evaluate

Plant materials, growth conditions and field design

Where relevant, reviewers consider whether species, cultivar, accession, genotype, mutant, transgenic or edited line identity is adequately reported; whether controlled-environment conditions are described; and whether field studies provide appropriate location, season, replication, plot structure, environmental context and statistical design.

Plant collection permits, biosafety requirements, regulated biological material, and access-and-benefit-sharing considerations should be addressed where applicable.

Replication and quantitative validity

• The meaning of n should be clear.
• Biological and technical replicates should not be confused.
• Statistical tests should match the experimental design and data structure.
• Error bars, significance thresholds and multiple-comparison procedures should be defined where applicable.
• Pseudoreplication, inappropriate pooling, selective exclusion, or unsupported statistical claims may require correction.

High-dimensional and computational evidence

• Data selection and preprocessing should be transparent.
• Software, versions, parameters, reference resources and quality-control procedures should be described.
• Multiple-testing and false-discovery procedures should be appropriate.
• Machine-learning studies should avoid data leakage and use defensible training/validation/test strategies.
• Computational associations should not be presented as functional mechanisms without adequate evidence.
• Public datasets should be clearly distinguished from newly generated data.

Evidence required to support the conclusions

Reviewers may assess whether data necessary to support the main conclusions are available in the manuscript, supplementary files, or an appropriate public repository. Accession numbers should be supplied when suitable repositories exist.

Reviewers may request code, scripts, pipelines or source data when necessary for evaluation, but should avoid unnecessary requests unrelated to the central claims.

Scientific images must represent the original evidence accurately

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially when there are credible concerns about duplicated image regions, inappropriate splicing, reused controls, manipulated blots, altered microscopy images, inconsistent panels, or other visual anomalies.

The journal may request original or uncropped image files, source data, or other documentation when further assessment is necessary.

Ethics, permits and biosafety

Reviewers and editors should consider whether manuscripts contain appropriate approvals or statements for human or animal research where applicable, plant collection permits, protected species, genetically modified or gene-edited organisms, regulated pathogens, quarantine material, biosafety requirements, and relevant access-and-benefit-sharing obligations.

Missing or unclear documentation may be queried before an editorial decision is finalized.

AI must not compromise peer-review confidentiality

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscript text, figures, data, supplementary material, reviewer reports, or identifiable editorial correspondence to external generative-AI systems when doing so could disclose confidential information.

Human reviewers and editors remain responsible for scientific reasoning, factual accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and the final assessment.

Recommended structure of the review

Constructive, specific and professional feedback

• Critique the scientific work rather than the authors.
• Explain why major concerns matter.
• Separate essential revisions from optional suggestions.
• Avoid insulting, hostile, discriminatory, dismissive or sarcastic language.
• Do not tell authors directly that a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
• Do not request unnecessary citations or experiments for personal benefit.

Use confidential comments for matters requiring editorial handling

Confidential comments may include suspected misconduct, reviewer conflicts, limitations in reviewer expertise, concerns about reviewer identity, or sensitive ethical/legal issues.

Scientific criticisms that authors need in order to revise should normally also appear in the comments to authors rather than being hidden only from them.

Recommendation options

The editor makes the final decision

Possible decisions include rejection, major revision, minor revision, or acceptance. Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative.

The editor may reach a decision that differs from one or more reviewer recommendations when the written evidence, journal policy, scientific context, or ethical considerations justify doing so.

When reviewer reports disagree

Conflicting recommendations are not resolved automatically by majority vote. The editor evaluates the scientific reasoning behind each report.

The editor may request clarification from reviewers, obtain an additional expert review, seek statistical or methodological advice, or make a decision based on the existing evidence.

Responding to editor and reviewer comments

A revised submission should normally include:

• A detailed point-by-point response.
• A clean revised manuscript.
• A marked or tracked version when requested.
• Revised figures, supplementary material, data statements or declarations as needed.
• A reasoned explanation for comments that were not followed.

Revised manuscripts may return to reviewers

Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by additional reviewers when necessary. Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the editor when the required changes are limited and readily verifiable.

Revision should not become an endless moving target

Reviewers should focus on whether the authors addressed the original substantive concerns. New experiments or analyses introduced during re-review should be requested only when genuinely necessary to evaluate validity or a newly introduced claim.

Independent handling of journal-affiliated authors

An Editor-in-Chief, editor, Editorial Board member, Guest Editor, or other journal-affiliated author must not participate in handling, selecting reviewers for, discussing, or deciding their own manuscript. An independent editor should manage the submission under the same standards applied to other authors.

Thematic content follows normal review standards

Special Issue and Thematic Collection manuscripts remain subject to the normal review route for their article type. Guest Editors must disclose conflicts and must not lower the journal's scientific or reviewer-independence standards.

The Editors-in-Chief retain oversight and may reassign manuscripts where independent handling requires it.

Integrity concerns may pause normal peer review

If credible concerns arise regarding plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, redundant publication, authorship, reviewer identity, or peer-review manipulation, the manuscript may be placed on hold while the issue is assessed.

Authors may be asked for clarification or source material, and serious unresolved concerns may be referred to relevant institutions or research-integrity bodies when appropriate.

Peer review is a confidential editorial process

• Manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential.
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the submission.
• Unpublished data and ideas must not be used for personal advantage.
• Review invitations should not be delegated to another person without editor approval.
• Confidentiality continues after rejection, withdrawal, acceptance, or publication.

No fixed peer-review turnaround is guaranteed

PSH aims to handle manuscripts efficiently, but review time varies with reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, specialist expertise, revisions, ethical queries and other editorial circumstances.

Review invitations specify a requested deadline. Reviewers who cannot meet that deadline should decline promptly or contact the editorial office.

Appealing an editorial decision

Authors may appeal when they can identify a material scientific misunderstanding, significant procedural error, relevant conflict of interest, or substantive evidence that was not appropriately considered.

Appeals should address the decision directly and provide a concise evidence-based explanation. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.

Recognizing reviewer contributions

PSH may provide reviewer certificates, annual acknowledgment, or other appropriate recognition while preserving reviewer confidentiality.

Consistent high-quality reviewer service may be considered when identifying potential editorial contributors, but it does not guarantee appointment to the Editorial Board.

Related PSH resources

The peer-review process should be read together with the journal's author, editorial, submission, and publication policies.

PSH also maintains separate Reviewer Guidelines and Editorial Responsibilities guidance. Links should be added here only using their confirmed public URLs.

Responsible peer-review principles

PSH peer-review procedures are informed by recognized principles of responsible scholarly review, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on reviewer confidentiality, competing interests, ethical reviewer conduct, complaints, appeals and peer-review integrity.

Reference to external ethical guidance does not imply organizational membership, certification, accreditation or endorsement unless separately confirmed.

Rigorous review, independent editorial judgment

Plant Science Horizons uses peer review as one component of a broader editorial quality system. Reviewers provide independent expert advice; editors manage conflicts, assess the evidence, oversee revisions, and retain responsibility for the final publication decision. The aim is a fair, confidential, transparent and scientifically rigorous process that strengthens valid plant-science research.