Call for Papers
Call for papers for December 2026 Issue
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The editorial office may check:
An Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for external review. This assessment may consider:
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.
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.
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.
Reviewers are selected primarily for relevant scientific or methodological expertise and their ability to provide an independent assessment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A revised submission should normally include:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Call for papers for December 2026 Issue
Call for application for YSEB for Plant Science Horizons
| Metric | All | Since 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Citations | - | - |
| h-index | - | - |
| i10-index | - | - |