Reviewer Resources

Summary

=> Your review should be constructive and thorough to allow the authors to prepare a revision ready for acceptance.
=> If recommending rejection, you should explain why the submission does not meet minimum requirements for publication.
=> To keep the review anonymous, please don't include your name in the report.

  • Aim and Scope of the journal
  • Peer review process
  • Author guidelines
  • Editorial policies & Ethical Publishing
  • Reviewer benefits
    • Review Certificate will be given to the reviewers by email upon successful submission of reviews (PDF certificate is also available for those who need it)
    • Review receipt can be added to Reviewer's Web of Science profile (simply forward the email with reviewer certificate to reviews@webofscience.com)
    • Discount on the Article Processing Charge (APC) - If a reviewer submits a manuscript for publishing in the PST journal, 10% discount per MS reviewed which can be cumulative up to 5 manuscript reviews to get a 50% waiver on the APC will be offered.
  • Reviewer T&C
    • To get the above reviewer's waiver benefit, reviewed manuscript along with critical comments are to be submitted.
    • You may decline the review invitation if your area of expertise does not fall under the topic of the manuscripts given to you or if you have any conflict of interest.
    • You do not attempt to review if you belong to the same lab/institution from where the manuscript has been submitted.
    • The minimum qualification to associate as a Reviewer with Plant Science Today journal is Ph.D. in the concerned subject.
  • Guideline for submitting review comments
    • Method 1
      • See below sample comments / suggestions (to be submitted as 'for author and editor' in the review submission form)
      • The present study provides interesting results related to <abc>. However, revisions need to be addressed:
        >> In the introduction section, please add the references related to the studied genes. Why is the expression level of these proteins important to be analyzed?
        >> Please add the aims of the study in the last paragraph of the introduction
        >> Line 26: the composition of medium? And what is the BAP abbreviation and function?
        >> Page 7 line 5: pH of soil mixture?
        >> Page 7 line 27: P. indica, not Pi , needs to write consistently in the whole manuscript
        >> Page 7 line 29: boiled at temperature? Time duration?
        >> Page 7 line 38: mention the microscope specification, series, and magnification
        >> Page 7 line 46: please specify the leaves number sampled. For example, the leaf number 5th or?
        >> Page 8 line 1: RNA extraction….
        >> Page 8 line 1: how many mg of the leaf?
        >> Page 8 line 12: ….. to synthesize cDNA from RNA.
        >> Page 8 line 22: mention the four genes
        >> Page 8 line 41: mention the specification of RT PCR equipment
        >> Page 8 line 53 – 58: is there any data handling prior analysis? Normality test?
        >> Page 8 lines 8 – 12: I could not observe the presence of chlamydospores in Figure 1. Please clarify the figure using a pointed black arrow and add a scale bar on the figure. Add magnification on the figure caption
        >> Page 9 line 8: how about the hypha? Please describe briefly the colonization pattern
        >> Page 10 line 31: P. indica instead of Pi, please revise for the whole manuscript
        >> Page 10 line 44: please describe briefly why the author needs to measure chlorophyll a, b, and c and how was the results in the present study
        >> Page 13 line 1: …symbiotic association, not connection
        >> Figures 2: please add the label on the figure based on the caption i.e., C for Control, T for treated, a for Day 45, and b for Day 90. The label o the figure is missing
        >> Figures 3 – 6: please add the error bars and the statistical analysis result for significancy
    • Method 2
      • Comments as given above can also marked in the reviewed manuscript, but in such cases Reviewer has to provide critical observatins on the manuscript to be readable to both 'for author and editor' and 'for editor only' as the case may be.
  • Reviewed manuscript
    • Uploading of reviewed manuscript is optional if you follow above mentioned Method 1, but compulsory for Method 2.
    • The feedback you include in your review report will be shared with the manuscript author(s). Please keep it constructive and professional. To keep the review anonymous, please don't include your name in the report.
      We reserve the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.
  • Reviewer guidelines
    • The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors necessary information to reach a decision on a submitted study. The second purpose of the review is to instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their manuscript to the point where it may be acceptable for publication.

      Reviewers should be mindful that they are assessing the manuscript on technical soundness and scientific validity. This refers to both the methods and analysis: the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. As an expert in the field, it is expected from you to provide detailed comments and your thoughts on the manuscript. If you found there are critical flaws in the experiment or acquired data, then straightway recommend rejection.

      You may send your review comments in a separate document (ie. not in the original MS file) or you can submit the comments online through the journal website. You can also mark required corrections in the original manuscript which would help the authors to improve the manuscript, but this alone is not the review. By agreeing to review you are putting your own reputation on the table in a specific area. We are here not to reject or correct other peoples manuscripts, but we want to make sure that the studies done are scientifically sound and should be presented in a manner which should be easy to read, informative to the reader and scientifically sound. The journal believe just reading through the manuscript and suggesting changes with tracking on is not review.

      Confidentiality
      Editors and reviewers must treat the review process as strictly confidential process and should not discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but we ask that they should be identified to the immediate handling editors for that particular manuscript or contact sabu@jntbgri.res.in. Consulting with experts from outside the referee's own laboratory may also be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so.

      Timing
      We are committed to deliver quick editorial decision on a manuscript and we believe that efficient editorial pipeline is a valuable service to authors and scientific community. Hence we ask reviewers to provide review report promptly ideally within 10 days after receipt of the manuscript, but this can be extended, if required, by prior arrangement. If referees anticipate a delay, they should inform the editors so that we can keep the authors informed and if necessary find alternative referees.

      Anonymity
      We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. We prefer that reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

      We ask referees not to identify themselves to authors without the Editors knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities, this should be done via the PST's office.