Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Duties

The reviewers' task is to objectively analyse the scientific methods, the interpretation of the results and the validity of the discussion. Reviewers should indicate if the article should be accepted, accepted pending revision, rejected, or rejected with invitation to resubmit based on their analysis of the article and in compliance with the scope of the journal.

It is the task of the Editor to integrate information given by the reviewers and his/her own opinion before making the editorial decision. The Editor's decision will not always match the opinion of the reviewers, and reviewers are therefore asked not to make any statements regarding their decision recommendations in the comments to the authors. The recommendation should only be made in the confidential comments to the Editor.

Points to Consider When Reviewing

1. It is good practice to state at the beginning of the review that you will comment particularly on one or another aspect of the paper that falls under your area of expertise. Reviewers are not expected to be experts in all aspects of the paper. If you are unsure why you were asked to review a paper, contact the Editor who invited you. Editors prefer that you contact them with questions rather than not respond or complete the review.
2. Your major task is to spot potential flaws such as:
   • Conclusions contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
   • Experiments based on a discredited method
   • Ignoring a process/parameter known to have a strong influence on the area under study
   • Too small a sample population, insufficient control experiments, or statistically non-significant variations
   • Insufficient data to support conclusions
   • Data that are merely confirmatory and add little to current understanding

   It is highly appreciated if you not only identify flaws but also propose solutions or experiments that would circumvent them. This is of great help to both the Editor and the authors.

3. Check if the title is concise, appealing and does not overstate the results described in the manuscript.
4. Check if the abstract is clear, factual and does not state or imply conclusions that are not supported by the experimental findings.
5. Check if the materials and methods section presents sufficient detail for the work to be reproducible. Pay special attention to growth conditions (medium, day/light time, temperature, lamps and photon flux density). Statistical methods should be clearly described. Novel DNA sequences must be deposited in GenBank with accession numbers provided; results from omics studies should be made available in a public repository.
6. Check if the results are clearly and concisely written without false interpretations. Results should be readable without reference to figures. Use factual language (%, -fold) rather than imprecise terms (fairly, slightly, statistically).
7. Check that the discussion combines the results with current knowledge on the topic rather than merely repeating the results. Speculation is permitted but should not proceed in several consecutive steps (i.e. speculation based on speculation should be avoided).
8. Evaluate the usage of English but do not spend excessive time correcting it. Interesting manuscripts that are difficult to read should be accepted pending revision, with authors asked to seek professional English editing. Point out only the sentences that are particularly problematic.
9. Evaluate the readability and appropriate presentation of figures. The Editorial Office will check resolution, format and coherence, so do not spend too much time on these details.
10. Evaluate the proper use of the available literature. Are there sufficient citations in the right places? Do not spend time checking citation formatting, as the Editorial Office will handle this.

Possible Decision Recommendations

JOPS is committed to publishing original research papers that advance our understanding of plant development, growth, productivity, and plant interactions with biotic and abiotic environments. Manuscripts that are purely descriptive, have only an applied aim, or are rated as "repetition of known results" will be rejected. When making your decision recommendation, consider the following:

Procedure

• Your review must be submitted within 21 days of accepting the assignment. Should you need more time, please contact the Editorial Office promptly.
• In your comments to the authors, indicate all flaws in a friendly and constructive manner. Do not include your decision recommendation in the comments to authors.
• Number your comments and clearly identify which points are critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revision. Suggest specific ways the authors can address your concerns.
• In your confidential letter to the Editor, express your decision recommendation and the rationale behind it. Do not mention your recommendation in the comments to the authors.
• Ensure your comments are consistent with your recommendation. If you recommend rejection, your comments should clearly state the problems and should not be excessively positive or appear to contradict your recommendation.
• You may be asked to participate in a second round of review if the manuscript is accepted pending revision or rejected with encouragement to resubmit. We greatly appreciate your continued help, as this significantly speeds up the editorial process.