Review Guidelines

Peer Review Model

Acta Botanica Plantae adopt a single-blind peer review model meaning that reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors, but authors’ identities are known to reviewers. All accepted articles (except for some Editorials released by the Editors) will have undergone a rigorous and thorough review process to evaluate their novelty, scientific content, academic integrity, etc.

Peer Review Process

Each submission is subject to an initial check operated by the managing editor and the Academic Editor. The managing editor conducts the plagiarism check and reviews the manuscript for suitability versus the scope of the journal and appropriate format. Manuscripts that pass this initial check are assigned to an Academic Editor after disclosing conflicts of interest according to the Checklist. The Academic Editor is usually an Editor-in-Chief although an Editor-in-Chief may assign the role of Academic Editor to another Editorial Board member, a Guest Editor, or another expert who is active in this field for certain papers. The Academic Editor first takes a decision on whether the manuscript is sent for full peer review. If the Academic Editor finds that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality or that the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate for the journal, the manuscript will be rejected with no further evaluation. Manuscripts which pass the Academic Editor’s initial evaluation are passed on to experts for full peer review.

Peer reviewers should have considerable expertise/experience in the subject of the article, who focus on the manuscript and are invited to evaluate the manuscript’s quality with regard to significance, novelty, integrity, presentation, scientific soundness, etc. Reviewers complete the review by providing a constructive report within 14 days of acceptance of the invitation. Each manuscript usually requires at least two external review reports comprising detailed comments and an overall recommendation (“Acceptance”, “Minor Revision”, “Major Revision” or “Rejection”). 

The review reports will be submitted to the Academic Editor for decision on publication. In some cases, more than two reports will be required:

★ When two initial reports indicate opposing opinions

★ When the Academic Editor thinks more reports are necessary to guide decision making.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editorial Board and Guest Editors:

These manuscripts are handled separately by other editors, and the submitting editor is not involved in the decision-making or the review process.

More information can be found at Editorial Process of individual journals. 

Peer Reviewers

Suitable reviewers are selected based on the following points:

★ They are independent of all the authors and their institutions;

★ They focus on the same or similar research with the manuscript, and they are able to impartially assess the manuscript based on originality, validity, and significance;

★ They have recent publications in the same research area as the manuscript;

★ They can complete peer review within the required time;

Authors Suggest Reviewers

Authors may suggest reviewers who they believe are especially suited to review their works. This is particularly welcome when the review work requires highly specialized expertise. However, the journal retain the discretion as to whether to invite these suggested reviewers. Authors should provide a potential reviewers’ list including names, e-mail addresses, research areas, institutions, and ORCID (if available). Suggested reviewers:

★ should have a recent publication record in the area of the submitted paper; 

★ should not have a recent publication/submission with any author; 

★ should not share or recently have shared an institutional affiliation with any author; 

★ should not be a current or recent collaborator of any author; 

★ should not have a close personal connection to any author; 

★ should not have a financial interest with the work. 

Notes for Peer Reviewers

★ Declare any relevant conflicts of interest before starting the review. If a relevant conflict of interest exists, reviewers may withdraw from the review;

★ Respect the confidentiality of peer review. Peer reviewers should not divulge any information about the manuscript or contact authors without prior permission from the journal editors;

★ Destroy copies of the manuscript after completing their review reports;

★ Provide an objective and unbiased evaluation regardless of nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or other commercial considerations;

★ Report potential misconduct. Reviewers should alert the editorial office if they come across any potential research or publication misconduct, such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, or breaches of research ethics;

★ Do not request that authors cite the peer reviewer’s own papers, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this;

★ Submit review reports in a timely manner. It is acceptable to request an extension.

Other Participants and Their Responsibilities

Managing Editor

The managing editor is responsible for the first stage of initial check (including suitability of the scope, format integrity, and plagiarism check through iThenticate), seeking suitable reviewers, and coordinating the communication among authors, reviewers, and the Academic Editor.

Academic Editor

The Academic Editor assesses whether a manuscript is qualified for peer review, and makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript according to the review reports. The Academic Editor takes charge of the whole review process and evaluates the academic value of a manuscript.

The Academic Editor is usually the Editor-in-Chief, and sometimes the Editor-in-Chief assigns another Editorial Board member, a Guest Editor or another expert who is active in this field as the Academic Editor for certain papers. 

The name of Academic Editor will be listed together with the paper once it is published.

For more information about peer review, please refer to Peer Review Guidelines of individual journals.

Authorship Criteria

Acta Botanica Plantae endorses the authorship criteria defined by ICMJE. Individuals who fulfill the following criteria can be defined as authors.

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

Final approval of the version to be published; AND

Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding Author

When a manuscript has multiple authors, one of them should be designated as the corresponding author. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication between coauthors; handling all submission requests, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation; and gathering conflicts of interest statements and other statements. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission, peer review and production process and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work, answer any questions arising about the paper, and deal with any request from the journal for data or additional information.

Dual Authorship

Acta Botanica Plantae allows dual first/last authorship when two authors contribute equally to a work. Other equal contributions are best described in the Author Contributions statement.

Group Authorship

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be listed as authors. All members of the group named as authors should meet all above four criteria, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. 

Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors.

Authorship Disputes

The individual who is responsible for identifying who meets these criteria should ideally do this when planning the work, and he/she should make modifications as appropriate as the work progresses. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship or the order of authors, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal editor, should investigate. To manage authorship disputes, editors should refer to the flowcharts from COPE and “How to spot authorship problems”. Authorship disputes will often need to be referred to institutions if the authors cannot resolve the dispute themselves.

Authorship Changes

Authorship can be changed only before a manuscript is officially accepted. 

Authors can ask to remove or add authors. Under this circumstance, a signed statement of agreement including the reason and the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added should be provided to the editorial office.

Author Contributions

To provide appropriate credit for all authors and assign responsibility and accountability for published work, authors are required to include an Author Contributions statement in the Declarations part of the manuscript to specify the contribution of each author. The journal adopts the CRediT Taxonomy to describe each author’s individual contributions to the work.

ORCID

Authors are encouraged to provide an ORCID (Open Researcher Contributor ID). An ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier to distinguish individuals from others with similar names and links individuals to their research outputs.

Acknowledgments

Other individuals who have participated in the generation of the research paper but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section with a brief description of their contributions. Minors who have been involved in a piece of research (for example, children using technology) are typically acknowledged as they cannot be fully accountable for all aspects of the research.

AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing

For AI-assisted work, author(s) should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. AI and AI-assisted technologies cannot replace the tasks of researchers, such as developing scientific insights, analyzing and interpreting data, drawing scientific graphs, or drawing scientific conclusions. Author(s) should only use AI technologies to improve the readability and language.

Author(s) are ultimately responsible and accountable for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the article, and should disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technology in the writing process in the Declarations section at the end of the manuscript by following the instructions below:

AI-Assisted Work Statement: During the preparation of this work, author(s) used the [name tool/service] for [reason]. After using the tool/service, author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement. 

Note: A violation of this policy will be considered as scientific misconduct. The journal deals with any scientific misconduct on a case-by-case basis according to the guidance by COPE, WAME and ICMJE.