Review
Review
The articles will be sent to academic experts in the same disciplinary and thematic area as the submitted text. The reviewers will be selected from the referee panel —composed of specialists from national and international institutions— who will comment on the relevance and academic quality of the submitted text and will rule on the feasibility to publish the text in question.
Reviewer selection criteria
Reviewers are sought with a strong background in botany, demonstrated through relevant publications in specialized journals and active participation in botanical research. Experience in specific areas such as plant taxonomy, plant ecology, plant physiology, plant biotechnology or ethnobotany, among others, is highly valued depending on the focus of the article to be reviewed. Reviewers should be familiar with the latest botanical research techniques, including field methods, laboratory analysis, and molecular biology tools applied to plants. In-depth knowledge of local or regional flora relevant to the study is especially appreciated.
Objectivity is crucial, so reviewers are selected without conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions involved in the research. A balance between reviewers from different geographical regions is sought to bring diverse perspectives, especially in studies covering various botanical areas or ecosystems. The ability to critically evaluate the methodology employed in botanical studies is essential. This includes reviewing experimental designs, field sampling techniques, specimen conservation methods, and appropriate statistical analyses for botanical data.
Experience in reviewing scientific articles, especially in the field of botany or related areas such as ecology or environmental sciences, is valued. Reviewers must demonstrate the ability to provide constructive feedback that enhances the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscripts. An updated knowledge of trends in botanical research is crucial. Reviewers who are aware of recent advances in the field, participate in botanical conferences, and actively contribute to the botanical scientific community are preferred.
Ethics in botanical research is a fundamental aspect. Reviewers should be familiar with ethical standards related to specimen collection, work in protected areas, and the use of traditional knowledge about plants. A balance between experienced reviewers and early-career scientists is sought to foster diverse perspectives and support the development of new talent in the field of botany.
This meticulous selection process ensures that the articles published in Polibotánica receive expert and rigorous evaluation, maintaining high standards of quality in botanical research.
Peer review process
The reviewers will be in charge of revising and analyzing the academic, theoretical and methodological relevance of each and every article assigned to them. They will be responsible for revising the explicit presence of a theoretical-methodological section, as well as its congruency with the field of studies, coherence between academic output and relevance of findings, and also the up-to-dateness and suitability of the bibliography resorted to.
All the texts will be sent to two experts —ascribed to an institution other than the authors— who will express their comments.
In case of a discrepancy between reviews, a third reviewer will be asked to resolve the ruling.
Finally, based on the reviewers' recommendations, the decision of the editors of POLIBOTANICA will be:
- Recommend its publication without modifications.
- Recommend its publication with minor changes, which do not make it necessary for a second review by the referees.
- Condition its publication on making major changes, which makes it necessary for a new revision by the referees. This process may repeat up to three rounds, if upon reaching this point the document is not recommended for publication yet, it will be rejected with no option to resend it.
- Publication is not recommended.
For a text to be approved for publication it is indispensable that, at least, two of the three rulings are positive.
The editorial board will ensure, in all cases, that the reviews delivered to the authors have solid arguments to support the editorial decision.
The results of the editorial review process will be unappealable in all cases.
In case of observations to the articles, the authors will have a 15-natural-day deadline to send the editor the new version of the work. Should this deadline not be met, the document will start the process afresh.
The time for the document to be sent to review will be dependent on the number of articles in the waiting list. The referees, upon receiving the article, will have four weeks to perform the review and deliver the result.
The accepted documents will start the edition process (proofreading, metadata marking, layout, etc.), to later be included in the corresponding fascicle, according to the decision of the editorial board.
Review evaluation parameters
The evaluation parameters are:
|
PARAMETERS |
CRITERIA |
|
TITLE: |
Is it consistent with the content? |
|
ABSTRACT |
Are there included the following items in order? |
|
TOPIC |
Does it belong to the scope of the journal? |
|
INTRODUCTION: |
1. Is it related to the title? |
|
OBJECTIVES: |
Are they clear and related to the subject? |
|
RESULTS: |
Do they meet the objectives set? |
|
PICTURES, GRAPHICS AND FIGURES: |
1. Are they all necessary and follow the standards of the magazine? |
|
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: |
Are they justified by the results? |
|
BIBLIOGRAPHY: |
1. Is the inclusion of bibliography necessary? |
Review time
Pre-review: 21 days
First round of review 56-84 days
Review of corrections 28-56 days
Second round of review (if necessary) 56-84 days
Issuance of the acceptance opinion: 28-56 days
Review fees
There is not fee for review
