Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review at Advancements in Ethnobotanical Sciences (AES) aims to ensure the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, and ethical integrity of published research.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide concise, evidence-based, and constructive comments. Reviews should help authors improve their work while providing the editors with a clear basis for an editorial decision.

Key Points for Evaluation

Reviewers should consider:

• Originality and significance: Does the study provide a meaningful contribution to ethnobotanical knowledge?
• Scientific methodology: Are the study design, sampling, data collection, and analytical methods appropriate and sufficiently described?
• Botanical accuracy: Are plant names, taxonomy, identification procedures, and voucher specimens adequately documented?
• Ethnobotanical evidence: Are traditional or Indigenous knowledge, plant-use records, and informant information presented accurately and responsibly?
• Quantitative analysis: Are ethnobotanical indices, statistical methods, and interpretations appropriate and reproducible?
• Ethical standards: Have informed consent, community rights, Prior Informed Consent (PIC), Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS), and relevant permits been appropriately addressed?
• Interpretation: Are conclusions supported by the presented evidence and appropriately distinguished from traditional claims?
• Presentation: Is the manuscript clear, coherent, and supported by appropriate tables, figures, and references?

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

• maintain confidentiality throughout the review process;
• declare any actual or potential conflict of interest;
• provide impartial and respectful assessments;
• avoid personal or inappropriate criticism;
• identify important methodological, ethical, or interpretive concerns;
• avoid using unpublished information from the manuscript for personal research; and
• notify the editor if they cannot complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers may recommend:

Accept | Minor Revision | Major Revision | Reject

The final decision is made by the editor and is not determined solely by the reviewer recommendation.

Confidential Comments

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary. Any concern regarding research integrity, plagiarism, fabricated data, unethical collection, misuse of traditional knowledge, or other serious issues should be reported directly to the editorial office.

Reviewer Recognition