The Journal of Plant Science and Phytopathology (JPSP) recognizes the essential role of peer reviewers in ensuring the scientific accuracy, integrity, and quality of published research in plant biology, pathology, genetics, and agricultural sciences. Reviewers contribute significantly to the editorial process by providing objective, constructive, and timely assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their expertise ensures that only high-quality, methodologically sound, and innovative research is published.

Reviewer's Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Reviewers must handle all submitted manuscripts with strict confidentiality. The content, data, and findings should not be shared, discussed, or disclosed outside the review process. Reviewers must:

• Ensure that the manuscript remains confidential and is not used for personal research or professional gain.
• Refrain from discussing the manuscript with unauthorized individuals, including colleagues and students.
• Report any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication, to the editorial office.

2. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must provide an unbiased assessment of manuscripts, ensuring that their evaluations are based on scientific merit rather than personal or professional biases. They should:

• Critically evaluate the experimental design, methodology, data interpretation, and conclusions of research findings.
• Avoid making personal criticisms of the authors and focus on providing constructive feedback.
• Maintain professional integrity and adhere to the highest standards of peer review ethics.

3. Constructive and Detailed Feedback

Reviewers should provide specific and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript. A high-quality review should:

• Identify both strengths and weaknesses in the study’s research methods, data analysis, and conclusions.
• Provide recommendations for improvement, including suggestions for additional experiments, clearer data presentation, or enhanced discussion.
• Ensure that the manuscript is well-structured, logically organized, and scientifically sound.
• Recommend appropriate references if additional citations are needed.

4. Timeliness and Commitment

The peer review process relies on timely evaluations. Reviewers should:

• Respond to review invitations promptly and accept assignments only if they can complete them within the given timeframe.
• Inform the editor immediately if they need an extension due to unforeseen circumstances.
• Submit their reviews by the specified deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process.

5. Identifying Ethical Issues

Reviewers must be vigilant in detecting ethical concerns and research misconduct, such as:

• Instances of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data fabrication.
• Failure to disclose conflicts of interest or improper attribution of authorship.
• Use of unreliable or falsified experimental data.
• Unethical use of plant materials, including failure to comply with biodiversity and conservation laws.

Any ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial office.

6. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an impartial review. They should:

• Decline to review manuscripts where they have personal, financial, or professional conflicts with the authors.
• Refrain from reviewing manuscripts in which they have prior knowledge of unpublished data from the study.
• Notify the editorial office immediately if a conflict of interest arises during the review process.

7. Providing a Final Recommendation

After completing their evaluation, reviewers must provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. The possible recommendations include:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all scientific, ethical, and quality standards and is ready for publication.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight modifications before acceptance.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need substantial revisions before reconsideration.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s publication criteria or has major flaws that cannot be rectified.

8. Commitment to Scientific Integrity

Reviewers contribute to the advancement of plant science research by upholding the highest ethical and scientific standards. They must:

• Ensure that all manuscripts meet scientific validity and ethical research guidelines.
• Encourage research that enhances knowledge in plant biology, phytopathology, and sustainable agricultural practices.
• Uphold the journal’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and excellence in scientific publishing.

The JPSP sincerely appreciates the contributions of its reviewers and recognizes their essential role in maintaining the journal’s quality and credibility. For any inquiries regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the editorial office.