Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Horticulture and Floriculture Research (TAJHFR)
ISSN: 2689-0976

The American Journal of Horticulture and Floriculture Research uses peer review to assess the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. The process supports informed editorial decisions and helps authors improve the reliability and clarity of their research.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office checks each submission for completeness, compliance with author guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The initial assessment considers:

• Originality and contribution to horticulture or floriculture.

• Clarity of the research objectives and presentation.

• Suitability of the experimental design, analysis, and supporting evidence.

• Relevant research approvals, permissions, and ethical declarations.

• Authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest statements.

• Potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts may be returned for clarification or rejected before external review if they fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet its basic requirements. Passing this stage does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Suitable research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject and methodological expertise.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymized manuscript, removing identifying information from the text and file properties. Although the journal takes steps to preserve anonymity, identities may sometimes be inferred from preprints, references, or the research context.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers according to their expertise, independence, availability, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewer selection considers the manuscript’s crop, production system, research methods, and specialist subject area. Interdisciplinary submissions may require reviewers with complementary expertise.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments where these could compromise their judgment. Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but final selection remains the editor’s responsibility.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess:

• Scientific significance, originality, and practical relevance.

• Research design and methodological rigor.

• Appropriate identification of plant materials and treatments.

• Adequacy of controls, randomization, sampling, and replication.

• Description of environmental and cultivation conditions.

• Suitability of measurements and statistical analysis.

• Accuracy and clarity of results, tables, and figures.

• Reproducibility and availability of supporting information.

• Whether conclusions are supported by the findings.

• Recognition of limitations and environmental variability.

• Compliance with relevant ethical, biosafety, and reporting requirements.

For field studies, reviewers may consider seasonal variation, site conditions, and the extent to which results support broader recommendations. For greenhouse and post-harvest studies, assessment considers the control and reporting of relevant experimental conditions.

5. Editorial Decisions

The editor considers reviewer reports alongside the manuscript’s scientific and ethical merits. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required.

• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before further assessment.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or contains significant unresolved concerns.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; the final decision rests with the editor. Where reports differ substantially, an additional independent review may be requested.

6. Revisions and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit:

• An updated manuscript.

• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

• An explanation of changes and evidence-based reasons for any disagreement.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers. Further revision rounds may be necessary.

Authors should meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Acceptance and Publication

Acceptance is issued when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, reporting, and ethical requirements.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors must check proofs carefully, including scientific names, cultivar names, numerical results, tables, figures, and references.

Substantial changes to methods, findings, conclusions, or authorship after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further assessment.

8. Review Timelines

Review duration depends on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author response times.

The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors may contact the journal for a submission status update.

Acceptance or publication by a particular date cannot be guaranteed before the assessment process is complete.

9. Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

Manuscripts, supporting files, and review correspondence are confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished content without authorization or use it for personal advantage.

Reviewers must provide respectful, objective, and constructive feedback. Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, undisclosed overlap, or ethical concerns must be reported to the editor.

Citation recommendations must have a scholarly justification and must not primarily serve to increase personal or journal citation counts.

Confidential manuscripts, proprietary information, and unpublished research data must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could affect impartial assessment and recuse themselves where necessary. Relevant interests may include collaboration, employment, consultancy, commercial competition, patents, plant variety interests, or relationships with manufacturers whose products are evaluated.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members receive independent handling. The submitting individual takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision on their own manuscript.

Publication charges and commercial interests do not influence review outcomes. Payment does not guarantee acceptance, favorable reviews, or preferential treatment.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals should identify specific concerns about the assessment or decision.

The journal may seek independent editorial advice when reviewing an appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints about reviewer conduct, confidentiality, or the integrity of the process are assessed under the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.

Contact

For questions about peer review, submission status, revisions, or appeals, please contact the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.