The Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB) policy is to review articles by two expert reviewers under the double-blind peer review process, which means that both the reviewer(s) and author(s) identities are concealed from the reviewer(s), and vice versa, throughout the review process. The peer review policy is as follows:
- Vetting by the Editorial Office to ensure that the article conforms basic requirement of the research. This vetting process includes processing of articles (content quality, scope of the article, and similarity) using plagiarism software.
- Review by a General Editor who will take a decision on whether to send it out for perpetual review. if an article is deemed of insufficient quality or novelty, it can be rejected by the General Editor in conjunction with an Associate Editor at this stage. The author will be informed of this decision with a brief note spelling out the reason for rejection. If the article passes this stage, it will be reviewed.
- The General Editor delegates the decision-making authority to an Associate Editor. Two external reviewers will be selected by the Associate Editor and the General Editor will make the final decision.
- Reviewers are expected to respond in 3-4 weeks. Referee reports are typically 2 pages (or 500 words maximum). If the reviewer is unable to complete a review the journal applies the following policy:
- If a reviewer indicates that she/he is unable to submit a report in the 3-4 weeks of this process, a new reviewer will be selected.
- If a reviewer appears to be unable to submit a report after some time, the General Editor may decide that the Associate Editor should provide his/her view on the article in a brief report, which is submitted to the General Editor.
- An article may be rejected on the basis of one negative review, especially if this review comes from one of the Associate Editor.
- In exceptional cases, an article may be assigned a ‘revise and resubmit’. Such a decision will only be offered if there is a reasonable expectation that the author can meet the expectations set out in a letter with meaningful guidelines for improving the initial submission. Typically, a revised article will only be reviewed by the Associate Editor or one of the referees.
- The editor will also continually assess the quality levels of the refereeing procedure and annually review the Associate Editor team to ensure that its range of expertise is aligned with submission and research trends.
Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions. All authors are obliged to make the requested changes and correct mistakes. When changes are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their modifications. In each case, authors and reviewers must follow the schedule provided in the relative Call for Articles; instead, for monographic issues, the authors and reviewers will come to a common understanding of the deadline, based on the nature and quantity of the requested changes.
Previous Reviewer Comments
The Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB) permits authors whose articles are not accepted by one journal and who wish to submit their articles to this journal to request that the previous set of reviews be forwarded by the other journal. In such case(s), the Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB) requires all reviews from the other journal. Authors should request that the editor of the other journal submit all reviews, subject to the original reviewers giving permission for their review to be shared with another journal. Without prior consent, reviews will not be used. The reviews and confirmation of reviewer permissions should be sent to the journal editorial office (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) by the other journal. The Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB) will not accept peer reports directly submitted by the author. The Indian Journal of Advanced Botany (IJAB) is committed to ensuring that the identity of the original reviewers and the author are not revealed to either party, upholding double blind peer review. The Editor or Associate Editor of this journal will also commission additional peer review reports before making a decision, as indicated by our policy. The main advantages of this option are to reduce the workload on reviewers and speed up publication time.
As part of the submission process, you will be asked to provide the names of X peers who could be called upon to review your article. Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the article. Please be aware of any conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the below:
- The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of your submission.
- The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors.
- Reviewer nominees from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted
Please note that the Editors are not obliged to invite any recommended/opposed reviewers to assess your article.