Reviewer Guidelines

General Provisions

Manuscript peer review in the journal Plant Breeding and Seed Production is confidential and based on the principles of objectivity, impartiality, and high standards of academic integrity in accordance with international guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and WAME (World Association of Medical Editors).

  • Submitted manuscripts are the private property of the authors and are classified as confidential information that may not be disclosed or used prior to official publication.
  • Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using artificial intelligence (AI) tools for evaluating manuscripts, analyzing text, or preparing comments, suggestions, and the overall text of the review, as this violates confidentiality and authors' copyrights.
  • The reviewer's conclusion is significant but not final. In the event of a fundamental disagreement between the author and the reviewers' findings, the manuscript, by decision of the scientific editor, is sent for 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 and additional peer review, is final and not subject to further revision.

Peer Review Procedure and Deadlines

Following the preliminary screening of the manuscript for compliance with the journal’s profile, formatting guidelines, and the absence of plagiarism, the scientific editor (a member of the Editorial Board) selects independent reviewers matching the specific, narrow topic of the research.

The editorial office treats authors' suggestions regarding potential independent experts with understanding; however, it retains the exclusive right to involve reviewers who will ensure the most objective and in-depth analysis.

The standard deadline for manuscript evaluation and submission of the review is 2 weeks.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

In the review, the expert must comprehensively analyze the work based on the following criteria:

  • Compliance of the manuscript's topic with the scientific focus and scope of the journal.
  • Relevance of the topic, presence of scientific novelty, and practical significance of the research results.
  • Alignment of the article's title with its actual content.
  • Reflection of the state-of-the-art in the introduction and a clear justification of the study's objective.
  • Relevance of the research methods used to the formulated objectives and sufficiency of their description for full replication.
  • Sufficiency, accuracy, and reliability of the presented experimental data.
  • Availability of statistical processing of the results and correctness of the applied methods of statistical analysis.
  • Presence of an in-depth discussion (interpretation) of the obtained results in comparison with global counterparts, and validity of the conclusions.
  • Compliance of the language proficiency and the quality of graphic materials (tables, figures) with the journal's requirements.
  • Strict absence of any violations of academic integrity norms by the authors (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification) and the AI use policy.

Decisions and Revision Options

In the final conclusion, the reviewer specifies one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept the manuscript for publication in its present form.
  2. The manuscript requires minor revisions and corrections (without re-review).
  3. The manuscript requires substantial revision (with mandatory re-review).
  4. Reject the manuscript (with a detailed scientific justification of the reasons).

If the manuscript requires corrections, the author is given 2 weeks to introduce the changes. Upon receiving positive reviews, the manuscript is submitted by the scientific editor for approval for publication by the Editorial Board, followed by technical editing and preparation for publication.