Peer review policy and procedure for manuscripts

The Editorial Board of the research collection “Plant Breeding and Seed Production” (Selektsiia i Nasinnytstvo) conducts mandatory independent peer review of all manuscripts of scientific articles submitted to the editorial office. The purpose of peer review is to maintain high standards of academic quality, provide an objective evaluation of scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the materials, and offer constructive recommendations to authors for improving their works.

The peer review process in the research collection is strictly confidential and is based on the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and WAME (World Association of Medical Editors).

1. General Principles and Type of Review

·       Type of Peer Review: The periodical adheres to a Single-Blind Peer Review policy. The identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the names of the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors throughout the entire evaluation process.

·       Confidentiality of Materials: Manuscripts submitted for review are the private property of the authors and constitute non-disclosable information. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from showing manuscripts to third parties, discussing them with colleagues, or using unpublished data in their own research.

·       Prohibition of AI Usage: Reviewers do not have the right to use artificial intelligence tools (generative language models, automated text evaluation systems) to analyze manuscripts, write reviews, or prepare comments and suggestions.

·       Ensuring the Independence of Editorial Decisions: Editorial Board members and scientific editors of the research collection are completely recused from the decision-making process regarding manuscripts that they have personally authored, that have been co-authored by their family members or institutional department colleagues, or that concern products and services in which the editor has a direct interest. The evaluation of such manuscripts is conducted following the standard procedure, but under the supervision of a completely independent Editorial Board member, without any involvement of the author-editor or their research group.

2. Stages and Procedure of Peer Review

1.     Initial Editorial Control: Up to 5 working days.

Each manuscript undergoes an initial check by the scientific editor (a member of the Editorial Board) for compliance with the profile and scientific scope of the research collection, adherence to technical formatting requirements, and the absence of text borrowings (plagiarism check).

All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the research collection undergo mandatory screening for text borrowings (plagiarism). The check is carried out using the professional Similarity Check tool from the international agency CrossRef, which operates on the basis of the Turnitin (iThenticate) platform. Access to this tool is provided within the framework of official cooperation with CrossRef within the framework of the "Open Science in Ukraine" project.

The editorial staff of the publication strictly adheres to the standards of academic integrity. The results of each check are recorded in the publication's personal account on the Turnitin platform. Full digital similarity reports (Similarity Reports) indicating match percentages and primary sources are downloaded by the Executive Secretary in PDF format. These reports are stored in the local electronic archive of the editorial office (by the Executive Secretary and the Deputy Editor-in-Chief) along with the supplementary materials for each manuscript and are fully available for verification.

If the article does not meet the formal criteria, it is rejected or returned to the author for technical revision.

2.     Selection of Experts and Assignment for Review: Within 3 days after initial control.

For manuscripts that successfully pass the initial control, the scientific editor selects two independent reviewers (internal or external leading experts) according to the narrow topic of the research. Authors have the right to suggest candidacies of independent experts for their work. The editorial office treats such wishes with understanding, yet retains the exclusive right to involve those reviewers who will ensure the most thorough and objective analysis.

3.     Expert Evaluation of the Manuscript: Timeline — 2 weeks.

The engaged reviewers conduct a comprehensive analysis of the material and complete a Standardized Manuscript Evaluation Form, assessing the article according to approved scientific criteria. Based on the evaluation results, the reviewer issues one of four conclusions:

1.     Recommend for publication in its submitted form (without revisions);

2.     Recommend for publication after minor corrections and changes;

3.     Recommend for publication only on the condition of significant revision;

4.     Do not recommend the article for publication (with a detailed scientific justification of the reasons for rejection).

4.     Revision of the Article by the Author: Timeline — 2 weeks.

In the event of comments, the text of the reviews (without specifying the names of the experts) is sent to the author. The author is given two weeks to introduce changes, corrections, and prepare written responses to each point of the comments. If the updated version is not provided within the specified period without valid reasons, the manuscript is withdrawn from consideration.

5.     Re-review and Final Approval: Up to 7 working days.

The version of the article updated by the author is, if necessary, sent for re-review. Upon receiving two positive reviews, the manuscript is submitted for final approval for publication by the scientific editor and the Editorial Board of the research collection. Following this, the article proceeds to the stages of literary editing, typesetting, and translation into English (if required).

3. Criteria for Scientific Evaluation of Materials

During the analysis of the manuscript, reviewers must take into account the following parameters:

·       Relevance of the chosen research topic and its alignment with the scientific profile of the research collection;

·       Presence of clearly expressed scientific novelty and practical significance of the obtained results;

·       Consistency between the article's title and its actual content;

·       Reflection in the introduction of the current state of the investigated problem in global science and proper justification of the study's objective;

·       Relevance of the utilized research methods to the formulated tasks and sufficiency of their description for full reproduction of the experiment by other scientists;

·       Sufficiency, reliability, and representativeness of the presented experimental data;

·       Presence of complete statistical processing and the correctness of the applied methods of statistical analysis of the results;

·       Quality of the discussion (interpretation) of the results in comparison with existing global analogues, as well as the logical validity of the conclusions;

·       Compliance of the linguistic presentation of the material, terminology, and formatting of graphical material (tables, charts, figures) with the requirements of the publication;

·       Absolute absence of any signs of violations of academic integrity (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification).

4. Dispute Resolution and Appeal Procedure

The editorial office of the research collection “Plant Breeding and Seed Production” ensures the protection of authors' rights to an objective evaluation:

·       The conclusion of an individual reviewer is not a final and unappealable decision regarding the manuscript.

·       If the author fundamentally disagrees with the comments or criticism of the reviewer, they have a legal right to provide an official, reasoned response-rebuttal to the Editorial Office.

·       In the event of a fundamental disagreement between the author and the reviewers' conclusions, the manuscript, by decision of the scientific editor, is sent for an additional (third) independent peer review. The author has the right to submit only one official appeal regarding the current manuscript. The decision of the Editorial Board, made based on the results of this appeal consideration and additional peer review, is final and not subject to further review.

To ensure objectivity and full suitability of editorial procedures for verification, the evaluation of all manuscripts is carried out exclusively using the approved Standardized Manuscript Evaluation Template. Writing expert reviews in a free form is permitted at the initiative of the reviewer upon agreement with the Editor-in-Chief or their Deputy.

All peer review materials (completed forms, comments, editorial decisions) are recorded and confidentially stored in the electronic management system of the website and/or the internal electronic archive of the editorial office for at least 5 years to confirm the fact of peer review before the expert councils of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international indexing databases.

Based on the results of the evaluation, the reviewer is required to complete the Standardized Manuscript Evaluation Template.

·       Download the Standardized Manuscript Evaluation Template (Word)

·       The completed form (without specifying the reviewer's full name inside the file to maintain anonymity) must be uploaded by the reviewer directly into the electronic system of the research collection's website.

All evaluation forms are automatically recorded in the electronic website management system and the internal electronic archive of the editorial office, where they are confidentially stored for 5 years to confirm the fact of peer review before the expert councils of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine and international indexing databases.