Peer Review Policy

Plant Production and Pathological Treatment (PPPT) follows a strict double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of all published research. The journal is committed to maintaining high academic and ethical standards in the fields of plant production, crop science, and plant pathology through a fair, transparent, and unbiased review system.

1. Review Model

PPPT operates under a double-blind peer review system, in which:

  • The identity of authors is concealed from reviewers
  • The identity of reviewers is concealed from authors

This ensures that manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of academic merit, scientific quality, originality, and contribution to the field, without any bias or external influence.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the editorial office to determine suitability for peer review. This includes evaluation of:

  • Relevance to plant production and plant pathology
  • Compliance with journal formatting and submission guidelines
  • Scientific structure, clarity, and language quality
  • Plagiarism and similarity index screening
  • Basic ethical compliance requirements

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum standards may be rejected at the desk review stage without external peer review.

3. External Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers evaluate submissions based on:

  • Originality and novelty of research
  • Scientific methodology and experimental design
  • Accuracy and reliability of data analysis
  • Validity of results and interpretation
  • Contribution to agricultural and plant science knowledge
  • Quality of references and academic writing

Based on reviewer feedback, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

4. Review Timeline

PPPT is committed to an efficient and timely review process:

  • 2 to 4 weeks for initial peer review feedback
  • Additional time may be required depending on revision requirements and author response

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
  • Identify missing references or relevant prior studies
  • Report ethical concerns, plagiarism, or data inconsistencies
  • Declare conflicts of interest and decline review if necessary

6. Editorial Decision

Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editorial board member, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial evaluation. The decision is final and ensures fairness, transparency, and academic integrity.

7. Confidentiality and Ethics

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal research purposes or disclose it to unauthorized individuals under any circumstances.

8. Commitment to Fair Review

PPPT is committed to ensuring that all submissions are evaluated fairly and without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal background. The journal upholds transparency, integrity, and ethical publishing practices at all stages of the review process.