Peer-Review Process

Peer-Review Process

allacea Plant Protection Journal (WPPJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity, quality, and transparency in its publication process. To ensure the scientific validity and relevance of published manuscripts, the journal adopts a single-blind peer review policy, where reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Peer Review Process

1. Initial Screening
   • All submissions are first evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, author guidelines, and ethical standards.
   • Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements (e.g., out of scope, serious methodological flaws, or plagiarism above the acceptable threshold) may be rejected at this stage.

2. Reviewer Assignment
   • Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
   • Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

3. Review Procedure (Single-Blind)
   • Reviewers are provided with the full manuscript and asked to critically evaluate the quality, originality, clarity, and contribution of the research.
   • Since WPPJ uses a single-blind system, reviewers can see the authors’ names and affiliations, but the authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
   • Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments and clear recommendations within the stipulated time frame.

4. Decision Making
   • Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor makes one of the following decisions:
     • Accept as is
     • Minor revisions required
     • Major revisions required
     • Reject
   • Authors are informed of the editorial decision along with reviewers’ comments to guide revisions or improvements.

5. Revision and Final Decision
   • Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ feedback.
   • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the same reviewers or directly assessed by the editor before a final decision is made.
   • The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority for acceptance or rejection.