Peer Review Policy

Competitors

Journal of Plant Production and Sustainability (JPPS) engages potential referees to disclose any professional and commercial competing interests before undertaking to review a paper, and requires referees not to copy papers or to circulate them to un-named colleagues. All referees agree to JPPS's conditions before JPPS sends them a manuscript to assess. JPPS welcomes authors' suggestions for suitable independent referees (with their contact details having official email addresses), but editors are free to decide themselves who to use as referees. JPPS seeks to publish those papers that are most influential in their fields and that will significantly advance interdisciplinary approaches to promote sustainability, resilience, and innovation in agricultural systems, while ensuring the continuity of food production and safeguarding environmental health. Selected papers should present novel and broadly important data, syntheses, or concepts.

Transparent peer review

Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system. The core of any review is an objective assessment of both the technical rigor and the novelty of the presented work. Key features of a review include an outline of the conceptual advance over previously published work, a specific recommendation, the reasons for that recommendation, and a summary of the specific strengths and weaknesses of the paper. In this regard, we encourage referees to comment on the quality and presentation of the figures as well as the validity of the statistical methods used to interpret them. (If necessary, the editors can obtain primary data from the authors for referees’ use in these more detailed evaluations). A more general transparency in which comments to the editor can aid the editorial process, serves as an executive summary of the comments to the authors. In addition, this is an appropriate place to discuss any suspicions of ethical violations - either in the research itself or in the manner in which it is presented. Such issues might include suspected data manipulation or fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publications, or unethical treatment of animals or research subjects. 

Information for reviewers

Peer review is a critical factor in promoting the rigor and high quality of scientific research. The entire scientific community benefits when the peer-review process is timely, thorough, and balanced. The editors of JPPS greatly appreciate the tremendous collective contribution that reviewers make to our journal and the articles published. We hope that the ethical guidelines described below will help facilitate peer review as a conversation between authors and reviewers, and as an essential element of the publication process. Reviewer invitation for JPPS is sent out by email that includes information about the title and abstract of the manuscript and an indication of the time frame in which we would like to receive the review. After agreeing to review the paper, the reviewer has access to the entire manuscript. Once referees submit their reviews, they will have access to the comments provided by the other reviewers as well. We encourage reviewers to contact the editorial office at any time if they require additional information or assistance.

Speed of review process 

JPPS makes decisions about submitted papers as rapidly as possible. All manuscripts are handled electronically throughout the consideration process. Authors are usually informed within a week if the paper is not being considered. Most referees honor their prior agreement with JPPS to deliver a report within seven days or other agreed time limit, and send their reports online. Decisions by editors are routinely made very rapidly after receipt of reports. In most cases, JPPS considers ten days to be sufficient time to review a manuscript. However, we do appreciate that reviewers juggle a number of priorities. If a referee is willing to review the paper but would require more than ten days to do so, we ask that s/he contact the editorial office. It is important to inform the editor when a review is likely to be late; a revised estimate of the time until submission of the review and an explanation for the unexpected delay are invariably helpful.