Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines
Innovations in Plant and Environmental Sciences Research (IPESR)
IPESR follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality research in plant and environmental sciences. The following policy outlines the steps of the review process, expectations from reviewers, and editorial decision workflows.
1. Steps of Peer Review
1.1 Editorial Triage (Initial Screening)
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to determine whether:
- The topic aligns with the journal’s aims and scope.
- Required documents and formatting guidelines have been followed.
- The manuscript meets basic quality standards in structure, clarity, and scientific presentation.
- The submission passes plagiarism and originality checks.
Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage.
1.2 Assignment to Section Editor (Internal Review)
Manuscripts that pass the triage stage are forwarded to a Section Editor with expertise in the relevant discipline.
The Section Editor evaluates:
- Scientific soundness
- Methodological validity
- Quality and significance of the research
Based on this internal assessment, the Section Editor decides whether the manuscript should be rejected or sent for external peer review.
1.3 External Peer Review
If found suitable, the Section Editor selects 2–3 external reviewers, typically including both national and international experts.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and novelty
- Methodological rigor
- Scientific contribution
- Clarity, accuracy, and ethical compliance
They submit detailed reports with recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
1.4 Editorial Decision
After reviewer reports are submitted, the Section Editor synthesizes the feedback and makes an initial recommendation. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), who may:
- Accept the manuscript
- Request revisions
- Reject the manuscript
Authors receive consolidated feedback.
1.5 Revision and Re-Evaluation
If revisions are requested, authors must:
- Address each reviewer comment
- Submit a revised manuscript and response document
Revised versions may undergo a second round of review, either by the original reviewers or by the Section Editor. After the revisions are approved, the final decision is confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief.
1.6 Copyediting, Production, and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to:
- Copyediting
- Formatting and typesetting
- Author proof review
- Final online publication and indexing
This completes the peer review and publication workflow.
2. Initial Manuscript Evaluation Details
The Editorial Team evaluates all submissions for completeness and suitability. Manuscripts may be rejected if they:
- Lack novelty or scientific merit
- Contain major methodological flaws
- Have poor English or unclear presentation
- Fall outside the journal’s thematic scope
Manuscripts meeting the basic requirements are sent to two external reviewers (one national, one international). Based on reviewer comments, the editorial team will either request revisions or reject the paper. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional evaluation by reviewers or the editorial office. Final decisions rest with the editorial team.
Timeline:
- Initial editorial screening: ~ 3-4 days
- Peer review: ~ 15-20 days
- Submission to publication: ~1–5 weeks (depending on revisions)
3. Type of Peer Review
IPESR follows a double-blind peer review system:
- Reviewers remain anonymous to authors.
- Authors’ identities remain concealed from reviewers.
Reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Demonstrates originality in concept, data, and methodology
- Uses sound and clearly described methods
- Presents results that logically support conclusions
- Includes accurate, relevant, and complete citations
- Adheres to ethical standards, including plagiarism guidelines
- Provides a meaningful contribution to plant and environmental sciences
Language editing is not formally part of peer review, but reviewers may suggest improvements. In exceptional cases, manuscripts may be returned to authors for full language revision.
Average time from submission to acceptance: 1–4 weeks.
4. Reviewer Guidelines for IPESR
Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the journal’s quality and integrity. Reviewers are expected to abide by the following guidelines:
4.1 Confidentiality
All manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use manuscript content outside the review process.
4.2 Unbiased Evaluation
Assess manuscripts solely on academic merit, without influence from authors’ nationality, gender, affiliation, ethnicity, or personal relationships.
4.3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Reviewers must promptly inform the editors of any potential conflicts (personal, academic, or financial) that may affect their impartiality.
4.4 Timeliness
Reviewers should complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe to maintain efficient publication flow. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should notify the journal promptly.
4.5 Constructive Feedback
Provide:
- Specific, clear, and evidence-based comments
- Suggestions for improving methodology, presentation, and interpretation
- Professional and respectful language
4.6 Ethical and Scientific Standards
Reviewers should ensure that manuscripts:
- Follow ethical research practices
- Include necessary approvals (e.g., ethical board or animal handling standards)
- Show methodological rigor and sound experimental design
- Correctly interpret results
- Appropriately situate findings in existing literature
4.7 Originality and Contribution
Evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Adds new insights to plant or environmental sciences
- Advances knowledge or methodology
- Is free from plagiarism and data manipulation
4.8 Clarity and Presentation
Assess the manuscript's clarity, coherence, grammar, and overall organization. Reviewers may suggest language improvements when necessary.
