General Considerations
  • Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, Plant Protection's Editorial Board, authors, and audiences appreciate your willingness to accept this responsibility and your dedication.
  • Plant Protection adheres to a double-blind (peer-review) process that is rapid and fair, and also ensures a high quality of articles published.
  • In so doing, Plant Protection needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts within 4-6 weeks after the time they accepted to review.
  • Maintaining Plant Protection as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

(COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers:


If you have been invited by Plant protection Editor-in-Chief to review a manuscript, please consider the following:


  • Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their works
  • Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary
  • Providing all required information within established deadlines
  • Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal
  • Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review
  • Reporting possible research misconducts
  • Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document
  • Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript
  • Not communicating directly with authors
  • Not identifying themselves to authors
  • Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer
  • Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original work
  • Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge
  • Writing review report in English only

What Should Be Checked While Reviewing a Manuscript?
  1. Novelty
  2. Originality
  3. Scientific reliability
  4. Valuable contribution to the science
  5. Adding new aspects to the existed field of study
  6. Ethical aspects
  7. Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines
  8. References provided to substantiate the content
  9. Grammar, punctuation and spelling
  10. Scientific misconduct

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services (formerly Publons)

Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Services (formerly Publons) works with reviewers and publishers to give credit for peer review. 

In order to improve the activities peer review records of this journal, dear reviewers, please send the link of your Web of Science profile page to the editor of the journal. If you are not a member of this database, please register in the database through the link below and send the address (URL) of your profile in this database.

Web of Science registration link (publons)


In addition, please forward the review completion email, which will be sent to you after the reviewing manuscript, to