Reviewer procedure

This Journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.

Reviewers have 7 days to decide whether they are willing to review the paper or not. Reviewers are not obligated to perform the evaluation process, which subsequently is gratuitous.
Reviewers who agree to review the paper are given 1 month to send their comments to the Editorial Office. If comments are not received within this time, the Editorial Office will send reminders to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer does not respond to two reminders, the Editor-in-Chief will assign a new reviewer.

A Reviewer must select one of four possibilities:
– Accept,
– Minor Revision,
– Major Revision,
– Reject.

A descriptive review should include answers to the following questions:
– Is the subject addressed in the article worthy of investigation?
– Is the presented information new?
– Is the conclusion supported by the data?
– Were the materials and methods used adequate (for the problem under investigation) and sufficiently well documented, such that the research could be repeated?

Because the Journal practices double-blind review, the Reviewer must not sign a review. In the event of a Reviewer having questions (minor or major revision) the Editor will send reviews with a decision letter to the author. The author must answer the Reviewer point by point and resend a revised manuscript to the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should not review a manuscript with which he/she has principal disagreement that may affect the fairness of his/her decision. A Reviewer should not accept reviewing manuscripts whenever there is a conflict of interests between the Reviewers and Authors or institutions they represent or have personal relations. A Reviewer should not accept reviewing manuscripts to which he/she contributed either in writing, giving ideas, acquiring experimental evidence, analyzing etc.

Reviews of the manuscript should be based on scientific argumentation, free from emotions and personal, racial, religious or other preferences. Reviewers are to point out strong and weak points of the manuscript and suggest solutions for revision of the manuscript.

A Reviewer should keep all the information in the manuscript confidential and must not disclose its content to others. Before publication of the manuscript, the reviewer must not use its ideas for or against his own or other studies, or to criticize the author. After publication, the reviewer must not reveal his/her dispute with the authors beyond what is presented in the journal.

Any case of Research and Publication Misconduct detected by a Reviewer should be immediately reported to the Editor-in-Chief and supported by sending the related documents.

A Reviewer is not allowed to commission his/her task to anyone such as his/her assistant or graduate student without written permission from the Editor-in-Chief. Anyone assisting in reviewing the article should be mentioned in the review report and the journal documents.

A Reviewer is not permitted to contact the authors of the reviewed paper unless it is made through the Editorial Office.

The reviewing procedures in force at the Journal of Plant Protection Research are consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education on reviewing publications in research journals.