Peer Review Policy

Journal of Phytomedicine and Botany aims to promote scholarly communication and international collaboration across the broad fields of phytomedicine, botany, agricultural sciences, and related disciplines. The journal seeks to publish high-quality research that contributes to scientific understanding, innovation, and advancement in these areas. It welcomes original and scientifically sound contributions from researchers and the wider academic community.

Editorial Process for Manuscripts

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first examined by the Managing Editor to determine whether it meets the journal's basic editorial and technical requirements.

The initial assessment includes the following:

1. Scope and relevance: Whether the subject of the manuscript is consistent with the aims and scope of the journal and relevant to its readership.

2. Manuscript format: Whether the manuscript follows the journal's prescribed formatting and submission requirements.

3. Publication quality and ethical standards: Whether the manuscript meets basic standards of originality, publication ethics, research integrity, and suitability for consideration.

4. Presentation and readability: Whether the manuscript is presented clearly, particularly with respect to the methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.

Where appropriate, the Managing Editor may return the manuscript to the corresponding author for necessary corrections or modifications before it proceeds to the next stage.

If a manuscript does not satisfy the basic editorial, ethical, technical, or quality requirements, it may be declined at the initial stage following consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are assigned to an Academic Editor whose subject expertise is appropriate to the research area.

2. Academic Editorial Assessment

The assigned Academic Editor conducts a detailed preliminary assessment of the manuscript before external peer review.

The assessment covers the scientific content, research methodology, quality and presentation of data, originality, overall manuscript structure, and consistency of the written content. Particular attention is also given to the consistency of numerical information and units throughout the manuscript.

The Academic Editor also performs checks relating to the accuracy and reliability of the cited literature, including:

• Confirming that the cited articles can be identified and are appropriate references for the statements made in the manuscript.

• Assessing whether the cited literature is relevant to the corresponding content.

• Checking whether the DOI provided for a reference correctly resolves to the relevant article or publisher page.

• Comparing in-text citations with the reference list to ensure consistency in authors' names and publication years.

If corrections or clarifications are necessary at this stage, the corresponding author may be asked to submit a revised version before the manuscript is forwarded for external review.

A manuscript containing demonstrably false, misleading, or unreliable information may be rejected by the Academic Editor.

Manuscripts that successfully complete this editorial assessment are forwarded to external reviewers.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors during the review process.

Peer review is conducted confidentially to promote an objective and independent assessment of the submitted work.

Reviewers may be selected from qualified researchers registered in the journal's submission system as well as from suitable experts identified through relevant scholarly publications and academic research.

Reviewers who accept an invitation to review a manuscript are provided with access to the manuscript through the journal's online submission and editorial management system, which is based on PKP Open Journal Systems (OJS). Appropriate login credentials or system access are provided through the journal platform.

4. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent and scientifically informed assessment of the manuscript.

The review should consider, among other relevant aspects:

1. Methodological soundness: Assess whether the methods used in the study are scientifically appropriate and sufficiently reliable.

2. Study design and analysis: Examine whether the experimental or study design, sample size, statistical methods, and procedures are appropriate for addressing the stated research objectives and whether the work can reasonably be reproduced.

3. Constructive recommendations: Identify weaknesses and provide useful suggestions for improvement, including issues relating to missing controls, insufficient replication, or inappropriate statistical approaches.

4. Overall manuscript assessment: Examine the text, tables, figures, results, discussion, and conclusions for scientific clarity, accuracy, and consistency.

5. Numerical consistency: Verify that values presented in tables correspond correctly with the values and descriptions provided in the main text.

6. Interpretation of findings: Determine whether the discussion and conclusions are adequately supported by the data and results presented in the manuscript.

Reviewers should communicate their observations clearly and professionally and should focus their recommendations on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

5. Review Reports and Editorial Decision

The Academic Editor normally obtains at least two independent peer-review reports before reaching an editorial decision.

After considering the reviewers' comments and recommendations, together with the Academic Editor's own assessment, the corresponding author will be informed of one of the following outcomes:

• Accept

• Minor Revision Required

• Major Revision Required

• Reject

Where revisions are required, the corresponding author will receive the reviewers' comments and the specific points that need to be addressed.

The authors are expected to respond appropriately to the reviewers' observations and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the journal.

6. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

After receiving a revised manuscript, the Academic Editor evaluates the authors' responses and the changes made to the manuscript.

Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the Academic Editor may:

• make a decision based on the revised manuscript and authors' responses;

• request further clarification from the authors; or

• return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers for an additional assessment.

The final editorial decision will take into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the quality of the authors' responses, the extent to which the requested revisions have been addressed, and the overall scientific suitability of the manuscript.

7. Final Quality Check After Acceptance

A manuscript that has received an acceptance decision undergoes an additional quality-control assessment by the production team before publication.

This final assessment includes:

1. DOI verification: Checking the DOI information provided for references and confirming that the DOI resolves correctly to the corresponding article or publisher webpage.

2. Citation-reference consistency: Comparing the citations within the manuscript with the reference list to verify consistency in authors' names and publication years.

Any discrepancies identified during this stage may be returned to the editorial team or corresponding author for correction before production is completed.

8. Citation and Reference Preparation

Following completion of the final reference checks, the production team prepares the citations and references for publication.

Citation and reference links are appropriately bookmarked and prepared to facilitate accurate navigation between the article text and the corresponding references.

The finalized manuscript is then prepared for galley proof and sent to the corresponding author for final checking before publication.

9. Confidentiality and Editorial Integrity

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Phytomedicine and Botany are handled confidentially throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are expected to protect unpublished manuscript information and should not use information obtained through the editorial or peer-review process for personal or professional advantage.

The peer-review process is intended to provide an independent assessment of the scientific quality, reliability, and relevance of submitted research while maintaining fairness and confidentiality.

10. Final Editorial Responsibility

The final decision regarding publication rests with the journal's editorial team. Reviewer recommendations are an important part of the decision-making process, but acceptance or rejection is determined by the Academic Editor and Editor-in-Chief based on the complete editorial and peer-review assessment.

The journal may request additional review or clarification whenever necessary to ensure that manuscripts accepted for publication meet the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.