Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance For Medicinal Plant Journal

All research articles, and most other article types, published in Medicinal Plant journals undergo peer review process. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to Medicinal Plant  journal are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to look after the peer review process. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.

Editor Responsibilities

• Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. In such cases, where only one reviewers reports received, the Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report, if the peer review report meets the standards.
• Peer review reports should provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results.
• Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
• Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review.

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.

Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer's institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.

Peer Reviewer Diversity

Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.

Peer Reviewer Misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers-will result in rejection of the manuscript. Medicinal Plants journal follow the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer Reviewer Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal's editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal. Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

We ask reviewers to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript: Key results, Validity of the work, Originality and significance, Data & methodology, Appropriate use of statistics analysis, and Conclusions:, Suggested improvements: relevant and updated References: plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.

Medicinal Plant Journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the time schedule. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.