Peer-review process in JHPR
All articles are reviewed by the Editorial Board and qualified reviewers. Decisions will be made as rapidly as possible and the journal strives to return reviewersʼ comments to authors within 4-6 weeks. The Journal of Horticulture and Postharvest Research (JHPR) is a double-blind peer-review academic journal published quarterly. The double-blind peer-review process is used by JHPR to ensure that papers submitted for publication are fairly reviewed by experts in the relevant field, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other.
The editorial board will re-review article(s) that are accepted pending revision. All accepted article(s) will be published online immediately after proofreading and formatting process.
Our online submission system guides you stepwise through the process of entering your article details and uploading your files. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and requests for revision, is sent by e-mail. Revised papers received more than one month after reviewers' comments were sent may be treated as new submissions. If the author has not replied to reminders about revisions within 3 months, the paper will be considered to have lapsed, and any subsequent submission will be treated as a new submission.
In-house submissions, i.e. papers authored by Editors or Editorial Board members of the title, will be sent to Editors unaffiliated with the author or institution and monitored carefully to ensure there is no peer review bias.
The peer review process in the JHPR can be summarized into the following steps:
1. Registration and submission of manuscript (article)
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system of the JHPR website. JHPR will not accept submissions or revision by email (except in the proof stage).
2. Editorial office assessment
The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and prepared according to JHPR format. Editors check the plagiarism detection of manuscripts in this journal by using iThenticate.
3. Appraisal by the editor-in-chief (EIC)
The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
4. EIC assigns an associate editor (AE)
In some cases EIC of JHPR send paper to AE to handle the peer review.
5. Invitation to reviewers
The handling editor (mostly EIC) sends invitations to individuals (commonly 2-3 reviewers) he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers to start general review of the paper. The review time is about 3 weeks as general reviewers and 2 weeks for final reviewer of the manuscript on JHPR.
6. Response to invitations
Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.
7. Review is conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The JHPR also designed an online evaluation form which includes 12 questions regarding different sections of manuscript for general reviewer and 5 questions for final reviewer. The reviewer must answer to the questions to get a final score for the evaluated manuscript. Based on the obtained point, the reviewer makes final decision and recommendation to accept or reject it – or a request for revision (major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
Recommendation
Accept (Scientifically sound. Minor grammatical and spelling errors to be changed by publisher)
Minor Revision (minor scientific amendments or clarification required; and/or English language needs improvement)
Major Revision (significant rewrite required; further experiments required; and/or lacking important information)
Reject (scientifically unsound; unoriginal; and/or not a significant advancement)
8. Journal evaluates the reviews
The EIC or AE of JHPR (handling editor) considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer (final review) so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.
9. The decision is communicated
The EIC sends a decision via online system of JHPR to the corresponding author including any relevant reviewer comments.
10. Next Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.
International Standards for Reviewers:
- That all manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).
- That any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief. Also, all information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential and any information that may be the reason for the rejection of publication of a manuscript must be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Cope Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers is available on the COPE website for more details.
