Guidelines for Reviewers

As a peer reviewer for WheatOmics, you are part of a valued community. Scientific progress depends on the communication of information that can be trusted, and the peer review process is a vital part of that system. Reviewers may be selected to evaluate separate components of a manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time spent in preparing a review and will consult reviewers on a revision of a manuscript only if we believe the paper has been significantly improved but still requires input. The final responsibility for decisions of acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript lies with the editor.

Maintain Objectivity: If a reviewer cannot judge a paper impartially, they should not accept the invitation to review it. If a reviewer has any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that are or even may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, they should not accept the invitation to review, or, if this conflict of interest is uncovered after seeing the full manuscript materials, they should recuse themselves immediately and fully inform the journal editors. If there is an aspect of a manuscript that a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate, they should inform the editor.

Provide thoughtful and useful feedback: Reviews should be both constructive and polite, honoring the author's intellectual independence. Personal remarks are to be avoided. The editors of WheatOmics have the authority to modify or remove comments that will hinder constructive discussion of manuscripts. If something is unclear due to the language please address this in the review; however reviewers are not expected to edit/correct the grammar or language in the manuscript. Please restrict review comments directed to the authors to the scientific content. If you feel that English language editing is recommended, please note this in your confidential comments to the editor.

Ensure Timeliness: Just as a reviewer may wish prompt evaluations of their own research, we request they return reviews within the time period specified when asked to review the paper. If events will prevent a timely review, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to inform the editor at the time of the request.

Preserve anonymity: Our review process is strictly anonymous; WheatOmics strictly maintains reviewer anonymity, ensuring that authors are not aware of to the identities of their reviewers. This commitment to privacy and confidentiality extends to reviewers as well, who are expected not to disclose their participation in the review process to any third parties or the media. The contents of the review will be disclosed solely to the author, the editor, and, on occasion, other reviewers, but always without revealing identities.

Preserve confidentiality: Reviewers must regard the manuscripts they assess as confidential documents, given their status as privileged communications. Reviewers should destroy all copies of the manuscript after review and not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the express consent permission of the editor. Furthermore, reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission (unless they are invited to write an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).

Familiarize with Editorial Policies: It is essential for reviewers to understand the editorial policies of WheatOmics, particularly concerning conflicts of interest, data availability, and the sharing of materials. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the Publication Ethics for a comprehensive overview of these guidelines.

Criteria for Evaluation

Scope: The manuscript should fall within the scope of the journal.

Novelty: The information should not already exist in the literature. It should be innovative and answer an important question within the field. Ideally, it should also have the potential for implications outside of the field.

Methods: The approach should be clear, appropriate, rigorous, and current.

Conclusions: The evidence provided should justify the conclusions and the conclusions should be compelling enough to deserve rapid publication.

Research articles: Research articles constitute comprehensive, original research contributions that showcase groundbreaking and impactful discoveries in the field of plant sciences. These articles are structured to include several key components within the main text, notably an abstract, introduction, results, discussion, and methods sections. A research article should not exceed 8,000 words for the main text, which does not include the title page, references, figure legends, and tables. In terms of visual and tabular information, a maximum of 7 display items (comprising main figures and tables) is permitted. Any additional display items can be accommodated online as supplementary material.

Research reports: Research reports are designed to communicate groundbreaking and urgent findings that are dignified to make a significant impact in the field of plant sciences. These reports are concise, with a word limit of 4,500 for the main text, excluding the title page, references, figure legends, and tables. The maximum number of display items, including figures and tables, is restricted to four. Structurally, a research report includes an abstract, an introduction, a combined section for results and discussion, and methods within the main text. To accommodate comprehensive details and additional items, supplementary information may be published online.

Review articles: A review article should not only summarize, highlight, and critique recent literature but also synthesize and illustrate conceptual frameworks on a topic of broad interest in plant science. A review article typically should not exceed 9,000 words in the main text (excluding the title page, references, figure legends, and tables) and have no more than 7 display items (figures and tables) in total.

Perspectives: A perspective article features the discussions that illustrate historical research milestones, current frontiers, future research directions/prospects, and possible solutions on an important topic of broad interest in plant science. A perspective paper can be prepared with the same format and word limit as a review article but is expected to provide the readers with more forward-looking viewpoints.

Resource articles: The resource articles is intended for works that present either groundbreaking technical innovations or significant advancements, as well as other essential resources that carry substantial value and appeal to a wide audience within the field of plant sciences. Submissions that introduce a technological improvement are expected to include a proof of concept that illustrates how the novel method can facilitate exploration of crucial questions across various domains of plant science. Contributions that provide large-scale data sets or establish a significant informational database are required to offer new, thought-provoking biological insights gathered from the data analysis. The structure of resource articles may align with that of research articles or reports, adhering to the same guidelines regarding length, and the number of figures and tables permitted.

Peer review process

Submissions undergo an initial evaluation by professional scientific editors, who may consult with members of the editorial board when necessary. If a submission is considered unsuitable for publication in WheatOmics following this preliminary assessment, it will be returned to the authors without undergoing external review, typically within 7 working days, to prevent any delay in submitting the work to another venue. Manuscripts that proceed to external review will be managed by professional scientific editors and assessed by three reviewers.

Based on the feedback from the reviewers, combined with the editor's own evaluation, the editor has several courses of action:

(1) Accept the manuscript either in its current form or subject to minor revisions.

(2) Conditionally approve the manuscript, pending substantial revisions. This means that the authors must revise the manuscript to address specific issues preventing its acceptance. The revised submission will be re-evaluated by the original reviewers and the editor, who will then decide whether to accept it, request further revisions, or reject it based on a consensus among the reviewers and the editor.

(3) Reject the manuscript. Reasons for rejection typically include a lack of novelty, insufficient advancement in the field, or significant technical flaws. While the journal generally does not encourage resubmission following rejection, in certain instances, the editor may decide to allow resubmission if it is believed that the concerns raised by reviewers can be adequately addressed by the authors, as determined by the editor.

Guideline for review report writing

Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing and a fundamental part of the scientific methodology. It fulfils two primary objectives:

Quality Control: Peer review acts as a screening mechanism to ensure research is rigorously examined before publication.

Enhancement of Research Quality: The process of evaluation by fellow experts helps refine the research by sharpening its key arguments and correcting any oversights.

Reviewers are advised to concentrate on the research's significance and the solidity of its conclusions. This involves assessing whether the study's outcomes and deductions are, in principle, of sufficient importance and whether the evidence presented validates these conclusions. Reviewers should approach manuscript evaluation with a constructive and unbiased, yet critical perspective. Critiques should be expressed in a reasoned and respectful manner, avoiding any offensive language. Negative evaluations should offer clear feedback to authors on the shortcomings of their work, aiding them in understanding the reasons behind a decision for revision or rejection. Conversely, positive evaluations should articulate the reasons why the work is considered a significant contribution to the field of plant biology.

The typical report should include the following:

Summary and Overall Impressions: The initial paragraph should summarize the manuscript's key discoveries and provide the reviewer's overall assessment. It should also highlight the principal deficiencies of the submission. This summary serves to give the authors and editors a concise overview of the manuscript's strengths and areas needing improvement.

Detailed, Numbered Feedback: Comments should be itemized and, where applicable, categorized into significant and minor critiques. (Numbering facilitates both the editor’s evaluation of the manuscript and the authors’ rebuttal to the report.)

The report is expected to address the following inquiries:

· What are the principal claims made, and what is their level of significance?

· Do the claims introduce novelty and are they convincing?

· Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?

· Does the research hold relevance for a broad audience beyond those with specialized knowledge?

· How does the paper differentiate itself from other works within its field?

· Are there additional experiments or studies recommended to enhance the robustness of the paper?

For manuscripts that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if reviewers can provide advice on the following aspects, where applicable:

· Specific comments about whether the writing of the manuscript needs to be improved.

· Recommendations on whether the length of the manuscript could be reduced for conciseness and clarity.

· Suggestions to have earlier literature represented more fairly.

· Suggestions to add methodological details so that the experiments can be reproduced.

· A requirement for the submission of online supplemental data for the WheatOmics website to enhance the presentation.

Reviewers are expected to offer polite and constructive feedback concerning the manuscript’s methodology, design of experiments, statistical evaluation of data, the soundness of conclusions, and the logic presented in the discussion. Please organize your observations in a numbered list to allow for a direct and effective response from the authors. Input on any parts of the manuscript that could be either omitted or summarized to enhance its overall impact and readability is particularly valued.

Feedback to reviewers

Once a final decision on a manuscript has been made, all reviewers will be informed of that decision and be able to see the comments from other reviewers. Reviewers who find that their recommendations have been overruled should realize that this does not imply any lack of confidence in their judgment. It is not uncommon for experts to disagree and, in the absence of a consensus; the editors must still reach a decision one way or another. When a reviewer is asked to re-review a manuscript that has been revised in response to their criticisms, copies of original comments from all reviewers will also be included.

Editor in Chief: eic@wheatomics.com

Queries about submission issues, peer review process, or the status of your manuscript should be sent to editorial_office@wheatomics.com

General inquiries sent to info@wheatomics.com