- Peer Reviewers
- Peer Review Process
- Review Decision and Concern
- Revision of the Article
- Author’s Appeal to Reconsider the Rejected Article
- Embargo Period for the Rejected Article
- Acceptance and Final Article Submission for Publication
- Reviewer Review Report
- Recommended Reviewers
At the initial submission stage of the article, incorporate article texts and figures into a single file (msword) and maintain image quality at 300 dpi. Every submitted article will go through a peer-review process, ensuring double anonymity, meaning that the author and reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the review process. Peer reviewers advise editors on improving an article and determining its priority for publication in the journal. After consulting with the reviewers, the editors pick whether to accept the manuscripts for publication and establish any necessary conditions.1
The submitted articles undergo a double-anonymized peer-review process. Editors review for standards. The articles deemed appropriate are sent to external reviewers, while those unsuitable ones are rejected. The editors may also request expert advice when needed1,2.
Once an article is submitted to the Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB), an editor will review it thoroughly to determine if it meets its standards. If the article passes the initial assessment, it will be sent to an external reviewer knowledgeable in its subject matter. Any articles deemed unsuitable for the journal by the editor, either due to lack of general interest or other reasons, will be rejected without external review. The editor may also seek informal advice from experts in the field to make this decision.
As a reviewer, it’s essential to maintain confidentiality while reviewing articles. Sharing any information or ideas from the article should only happen after publication, and any copies you have should be destroyed. If you need help, acknowledge contributions in written comments to the editor while maintaining confidentiality. Disclose your use of AI technology to facilitate your review. Remember that the output generated by AI can be flawed or biased. Respond promptly and provide constructive, honest, and polite comments. If there’s a competing interest, declare any relationships or activities that may impact your evaluation and recuse yourself.3
- The editorial office checks the article to ensure it meets essential research requirements, such as quality of content and scope. Additionally, a good anti-plagiarism (e.g. Turnitin) tool is employed to identify any similarities in the article.
- The General Editor will review an article to determine if it should proceed to perpetual review. It may be rejected if the General Editor and Associate Editor determine that the article lacks sufficient quality or novelty. The author will receive a brief explanation for any rejection. If it is not rejected, it will be forwarded for further review.
- An Associate Editor has been given the power to make decisions by the general editor, including selecting an external reviewer. After reviewing the comments made by the reviewer, the General Editor will decide whether to accept or reject the article.
- When reviewing an article, it is essential for reviewers to respond within 3-4 weeks to ensure timely processing. Reviewer reports must adhere to the two-page or 500-word limit. The journal maintains a strict policy if a reviewer cannot fulfil their duties.
- If a reviewer cannot submit their report within the designated 3-4 week timeframe, a replacement reviewer will be chosen.
- If a reviewer cannot submit his report within a reasonable time frame, then after the request of the General Editor, the Associate Editor may submit a brief view of the article to the General Editor.
- In the case of a negative review comment from an Associate Editor, there is a high likelihood of article rejection. Even a single unfavourable remark can be enough to result in denial. After rejection, re-submission of the article will be embargoed for six months. The author will explain to the editor about the changes when resubmitting the article. The author should revise the article based on the negative comments.
- There are instances where an article may receive a “revise and resubmit” request from the author. This is only given if there is a justifiable anticipation that the author can enhance the initial submission per the guidelines provided in a letter. Typically, the Associate Editor or one of the Referees will evaluate the reviewed article.
- The chief editor consistently monitors and assesses the calibre of the refereeing process. Additionally, an annual evaluation of the Associate Editor team is conducted to ensure their proficiency aligns with current submission and research trends.
Authors must engage in a thorough peer-review process, comply with publication norms, and make any required revisions and edits as part of the submission process. If modifications are necessary, authors have a specific timeframe to submit them.
- Accepted: revision/ correction is not required.
- Minor revision request: Amend the article to address some concerns.
- Major revision Request: Rewrite the article to identify the necessary errors and possibly make further improvements.
- Rejected and resubmitted: Further work might justify a resubmission.
- Rejected: lack of novel approach, Advancement, or technical errors.
Revision of the Article:
Authors will receive an invitation to revise their article after the editor’s request. The deadline for resubmission will be specified in the decision letter. The resubmitted article may be reviewed by the original or a new reviewer. Use the revision link in the decision letter and give detailed feedback to the referee when submitting a revised article. Don’t submit it as a new article.
Author’s Appeals for the Rejected Article:
Authors can ask editors to reconsider a rejected article, but appeals are given lower priority and may take a few weeks. Only one request is allowed per article after peer review, and the editor makes the final decision. Appeals are only considered if the original decision was significantly wrong due to factual errors or bias by the referee/reviewer. Only factual disputes that are crucial to the outcome will be resolved. The editor may request another peer review of the updated article and the authors’ response if an appeal is valid.
Embargo Period for the Rejected Article:
After rejection, re-submission of the article will be embargoed for six months. The author will explain to the General Editor about the changes when resubmitting the article. The author should revise the article based on the negative comments. The General Editor will authorise the Associate Editor to verify whether the resubmitted article has been revised based on the negative comments.
Acceptance and Final Article Submission for Publication:
Once editorial concerns have been resolved, the article is deemed fit for publication. The date set out in the article indicates that it has passed the quality check the first time it passes the submission guidelines. The date of acceptance mentioned in the article refers to when the editor issued the notification letter for the acceptance. After acceptance, the author will provide the editor with a proof copy of the camera-ready paper (the final article). Only changes to the title, scientific inaccuracies, or author list are allowed. Before any changes can be made, the publishing team must approve. It’s important to note that the journal has the final say regarding the style and size of the figures.
Reviewer Review Report
The primary purpose of a review is to give a detailed summary of what is currently known about a topic without including any new experimental findings like an original research article would. The objective of a review is to furnish editors with the necessary details to make informed decisions and aid authors in improving their work. If a review is negative, the author should be informed of its flaws to understand why it was rejected and improve for future publication. Reviewers should evaluate multiple aspects of the article to provide a comprehensive and informative evaluation.
- Inflammatory Material: Please confirm if the article has any offensive or defamatory language. Additionally, kindly note that the article should only be in English.
- Scope: Please inform me if any aspects of the article, data, or analyses are beyond your knowledge or understanding.
- Validity: Could you please let me know if there are any particular shortcomings in the article that could prevent it from being published? If there are, provide detailed information.
- Improvements: Please provide a comprehensive list of additional experiments or data that can further bolster the credibility of the revised work.
- Statistics and Uncertainties: Please identify all error bars in their corresponding figure legends. If this is not the case, kindly let us know by leaving a comment.
- Originality: Please ensure that suitable references accompany any conclusions presented.
- Clarity: Are the abstract, introduction, and conclusions appropriate and easily understandable?
- Methodology: Could you provide your thoughts on the soundness of the method, accuracy of the information, and delivery effectiveness?
- Outcomes: Could you please give an overview of the key highlights of the work that you consider the most significant?
- References: Are the references in the article accurately citing previous literature? If not, which references require addition or removal?
Referees must provide detailed comments with evidence in reports; please contact to chief editor for any unsure. Journal policy remains neutral on jurisdictional claims and naming conventions. Authors have naming freedom, and referees should only request changes if necessary for scientific clarity.
You can suggest expert reviewers who objectively assess your work throughout the article submission process. It’s essential to consider potential conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Please note that the editors may consider any potential conflicts of interest, such as prior knowledge of your submission, recent collaboration with an author, or affiliation with the same institution as an author. Please remember that inviting recommended or anti-reviewers to evaluate your article is solely at the editors’ discretion.