Peer Review Policy
Advancements in Ethnobotanical Sciences (AES) uses a rigorous and fair peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, ethical integrity, and relevance of published research.
Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the editorial team for:
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- originality and scientific contribution;
- methodological quality;
- clarity of presentation;
- appropriate botanical identification and documentation; and
- compliance with ethical and research-integrity requirements.
Manuscripts that are unsuitable for the journal or do not meet minimum scientific standards may be declined before external review.
Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. A double-blind peer-review model is generally used, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other.
For ethnobotanical field studies, reviewers may specifically evaluate the adequacy of participant selection, documentation of traditional knowledge, plant identification, voucher specimens, quantitative methods, and ethical or community-consent procedures.
Editorial Decisions
Based on the reviewers’ comments and the editor’s assessment, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Reject
Editorial decisions are based on the overall quality and significance of the manuscript rather than on a simple counting of reviewer recommendations. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor.
Revised Manuscripts
Authors should address all reviewer comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when substantial changes require further assessment.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and confidential assessments. They should disclose any potential conflict of interest and should not use, share, or disclose unpublished information obtained during peer review.
Appeals
Authors who believe that a decision resulted from a significant misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals are considered by the editorial team and do not guarantee reconsideration.
Confidentiality and Integrity
All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. AES reserves the right to investigate suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or inappropriate use of traditional and Indigenous knowledge.
Review Timeline
AES aims to provide timely editorial decisions while maintaining rigorous peer review. Reviewers are requested to complete evaluations within the period specified in their invitation and to notify the Editorial Office if additional time is required.