The reviewing process
The reviewing process at Journal of Horticultural Research is carried out in three stages. First, the
Editor-in-Chief evaluates if the paper meets the formal criteria and falls within the scope of the
Journal, and assigns the manuscript to selected Editorial Board member according to his/her
research expertise. The assigned Board Member evaluates paper specifically and decides whether
to reject it or send to two experts for reviewing. The final decision on acceptance is made by the
Editor-in-Chief, considering the opinion of the reviewers and the assigned Board Member, with
the eventual help of other Editorial Board members, if necessary.
Tips for the reviewers
The review process in Journal of Horticultural Research is anonymous in that term that the
authors are never informed of the reviewer’s identity. The review shall be clear, detailed, timely,
and shall reflect the unbiased opinion on the scientific quality of the contribution. Reviewers are
asked to be impartial in their opinion. If they cannot separate the evaluation process from their
personal views or if they have a conflict of interest, they should excuse themselves from
reviewing. They are also expected to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and ensure that
it is not disseminated or exploited in any form prior to publication.
Reviewers of the JHR are asked to respect the following evaluation criteria:
Evaluation of the scientific content- Is the subject of the article relevant to the journal’s scope (high, moderate, low, none)
- Does the research present new findings in the area (high, moderate, low, none)
- Are the data presented scientifically sound (high, moderate, low, none)
- Does the research have practical importance (high, moderate, low, none)
- Is the research of the international/global importance (high, moderate, low, none)
Evaluation of the presentation-
Is the paper clearly written and well-organized (yes, no, comments)
- Is the Abstract adequate and presents all the important information (yes, no,
comments)
- Are Keywords and Abbreviations adequate (yes, no, comments)
- Does the Introduction present the state of art in the area and the objective of the
research (yes, no, comments)
- Does the Materials and Methods describe precisely experimental material, procedures
and statistical analyses (yes, no, comments)
- Are all the Tables and Figures necessary and clearly presented (yes, no, comments)
- Is the Discussion adequate (not just replication of result presentation) (yes, no,
comments)
- Are the conclusions justified by the data presented (yes, not, comments)
- Have all the relevant literature been cited (yes, no, comments)
Overall assessment-
I recommend this paper to:
a. Accept as is, with minor editorial corrections if needed
b. Accept after minor revision (comments)
c. Accept after major revision and re-evaluation (comments)
d. Reject
The final evaluation of the manuscript indicates that:
The manuscript can be accepted with only minor editorial corrections. This recommendation shall
be used for manuscripts, which are practically flawless and require only minor linguistic
corrections.
The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. Such recommendation means that, in a
reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript is well prepared and requires only minor additions, deletions,
or corrections.
The manuscript may be reconsidered after major revision. This recommendation means that, in a
reviewer’s opinion, the manuscript in the form presented is not acceptable for publication, but the
research is well motivated and the data presented promising. Thus, the authors are encouraged to
resubmit the paper after proper corrections. Detailed comments to the authors are extremely
important in support of this recommendation.
The manuscript is not acceptable for publication. This recommendation shall be used for papers,
which have uncorrectable defects, like the topic, which is of a minor importance to the field,
improper methods used, empirical work weak or incorrect, or very poor writing. Comments to the
authors should articulate only the most serious concerns, without going into details