Review guidelines
Review process
During peer-reviewing within the Journal of Cultivated Plants authors and reviewers keep anonymous throughout the editorial process. However, upon request reviewers may disclose their identity. After an editorial review, the manuscripts are passed on to at least two independent peer-reviewers. Based on the title and abstract of the submission reviewers can accept or decline to do the review. If the review request is not answered within 7 days reviewers will receive an automated e-mail reminder.
As soon as the reviewer accepts doing the review he/she has four weeks to complete it. Otherwise, an e-mail reminder will be sent automatically. During the review, the reviewer has access to the submitted manuscript and further graphs or data supplied by the authors. Review comments can be entered into the fields "For author and editor" and "For editor". The last field can be accessed only by the editors. Additionally, reviewers can upload a file, e.g. the manuscript with comments (Please strip any personal identification from the file before uploading).
Finally, reviewers have to make their recommendation using the dropdown menu:
- Accept Submission: it is ready to go to Copyediting/Layout as is.
- Revisions Required: it requires minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the editor.
- Resubmit for Review: it requires major changes and another round of peer review.
- Resubmit Elsewhere: it doesn’t seem like a good fit for the focus and scope of the Journal of Cultivated Plants.
- Decline Submission: it has too many weaknesses to ever be accepted.
- See Comments: if none of the above recommendations make sense, you can leave a comment for the editor detailing your concerns.
Finally, hit the Submit Review button to complete your task. Review details can now not be changed anymore.
Recommendations for structuring the review
The review may be structured as follows in the field "For authors and editors":
-Start your review with your own summary of the manuscript.
-List the manuscript's strengths and deficiencies.
-Provide both, general overall and a list of specific, numbered point-by-point comments (use page and line numbers for orientation or the track change modus in MSWord).
-If you recommend a revision, spell out alternative scenarios for how the revision could be done.
-If you recommend rejection of the manuscript, suggest what future research efforts might examine.
In the field "For editors" answers to the following questions are helpful:
-Does the paper present new information?
-Is the problem well-stated?
-Are the methods used adequate?
-Are the observations and experiments conclusive?
-Are the results adequately supported statistically?
-Are conclusions with regard to methods and data correct?
-Is relevant literature properly discussed?
-Is the paper concisely written?
-Is the language correct?
-Is the title adequate and brief?
-Is the summary adequate?
-Are tables and figures easy to read and necessary to understanding?
-Are any data presented twice, e.g. by both a table and a figure?
Reviewers are asked to disclose, if they are able to review only parts of the manuscript or if there are specific conflicts of interest, which are important to be noticed by the editors (see conflicts of interest - reviewers within the Publication Ethics of the Journal of Cultivated Plants).
An illustrated step-by-step guidance for reviewers about the whole review process can be found here.
