REVIEW PROCESS
The collection "Horticulture" uses a two-way blind (anonymous) review: the reviewer does not disclose the personal data of the author(s); the author(s) does not disclose the personal data of the reviewer.
Scientific articles submitted to the editorial office undergo initial control for completeness and correctness of their design and compliance with the Requirements for manuscripts posted on the website.
The initial expert evaluation of a scientific article is carried out by the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief (deputy editor-in-chief) determines reviewers for articles submitted to the editorial office.
Reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of the scientific collection and external highly qualified specialists with deep professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field.
Reviewers (both those who are members of the editorial board and external ones) must be well-known specialists in the subject of the submitted manuscript and have publications in this field of research (preferably in the last 5 years).
After peer review of a scientific article, the reviewer may:
- recommend the article for publication;
- recommend the article for publication after its revision by the author, taking into account the comments and wishes expressed;
- not recommend the article for publication.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication after its revision taking into account the comments or does not recommend the article for publication, the review must indicate the reason for such a decision.
When reviewing, the reviewer may use either the standard review form developed by the editorial board, which is provided to the reviewer simultaneously with the article, or an arbitrary one.
When reviewing scientific articles, reviewers should:
- pay special attention to the relevance of the scientific problem raised in the article;
- characterize the theoretical and applied significance of the research performed, the correctness of the presented mathematical calculations, graphs, and figures;
- assess how the author's conclusions correlate with existing scientific concepts;
- assess the authors' compliance with the rules of scientific ethics, the correctness of references to literary sources.
A necessary element of the review should be the reviewer's assessment of the author's personal contribution to solving the problem under consideration. It is advisable to note in the review the correspondence of the style, logic, and accessibility of scientific calculations, as well as to draw a conclusion regarding the reliability and validity of the conclusions of the author (authors) in this work.
Scientific articles may be sent for additional review. Reasons for re-review may be:
- insufficient qualification declared by the expert in the issues considered in the scientific article;
- insufficiently high level of the initial expert opinion;
- acute debatability of the provisions expressed in the scientific article.
In case of refusal or revision, the reviewer submits a written justification. Reviews are stored by the editorial office for three years.
The editorial office sends the authors copies of the reviews (anonymous, so as not to disclose the reviewer's data) or a motivated refusal of the editorial office to publish this particular manuscript.
Editorial decision
The author receives a conclusion with comments without disclosing the reviewers' identities. After making changes, the article undergoes re-checking. The final decision is made by the editor-in-chief or, in the presence of a conflict of interest, by the deputy editor-in-chief.
Reviewing usually takes 2-4 weeks, and the first editorial decision is made within 4-8 weeks from the date of receipt of the manuscript.
