Review Guidelines

1. The research has not previously been published (in whole or in part) or is not expected to be published elsewhere (except in an abstract or as part of a published lecture or scientific thesis); we will consider manuscripts stored on prepress servers such as arXiv or published in institutional repositories. Articles presented at conferences are also included (a significant number of changes and mandatory citations of the conference report must be made before submission to the journal). Submission of manuscripts indicates that the authors permit publishing the article and calling themselves the original editor. The submitting author (correspondent author) is responsible for ensuring that all other co-authors approve the article’s publication and that no copyright disputes are discussed after the publication of the article. The respective authors are also responsible for ensuring that articles from a specific institution are submitted with the approval of the requested institution.
2. All authors have permission to publish. Once the publication is accepted, it will not be transferred anywhere else, in English or any other language, without written permission from the copyright owner. The magazine can translate the text of previously published stories into another language. In this case, you must first obtain the author’s consent that published the manuscript and, when submitting it, make it clear that the manuscript has already been published and describe it in an overview.
3. Authors must ensure that no material submitted as part of the manuscript infringes on existing copyrights or the rights of third parties.
4. The respective authors retain the copyrights of all papers published in this journal as per the ‘Creative Commons Attribution License’ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The author(s) should be the sole author(s) of the article and should have full authority to agree and in granting rights (if any) which are not in breach of any other obligation. The author(s) should ensure the integrity of the paper and related works. Authors should mandatorily ensure that submission of the manuscript to this journal would result in no breach of contract or of confidence or commitment given to secrecy.
5. If a submitted study replicates or is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and reference and discuss the existing literature. Submissions that replicate or are derivative of existing work will likely be rejected if authors do not provide adequate justification.
6. English quality: The language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. The author’s responsibility is to improve the English quality (if required) by any other third party service.
7. The research must meet all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
8. This publisher believes that no manuscript should be rejected only based on ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often, a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer thinks is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to frustrating decisions and delay the publication. The journals will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).

ONLINE PUBLICATION MODEL AND REPRINTS

We strongly encourage the “ONLINE” publication model. But we also understand that some authors require “Reprints”. Reprints may be used to display the article’s potential at interviews, conferences, distribution to colleagues, seminars, other promotional activities, etc. Therefore, if required, reprints can be ordered here (Link). ‘Reprint Charge’ (RC) is separate from Article Processing Charge (APC) or Publication Charge.

AGREEMENT FOR AUTHORSHIP

Submission of a paper to this journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed on the paper’s content. One author should be indicated as the corresponding author for all publication related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as a final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to the manuscript unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to the authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper. In the absence of any signed letter, approval of ‘Galley proof’ by the corresponding author will work as ‘certificate of final agreement of authorship. Generally, any change in the authorship after final publication is not entertained, and COPE guidelines are followed for any dispute.

PEER REVIEW MECHANISM

All journals followed a strict double blindfold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation.)

ADVANCED OPEN PEER REVIEW:

We have migrated to a transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review system (Detailed general information is available in this link). High-quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by a minimum of two peers in the same field. OPEN peer review system provides the provision to reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other during the review process.

REVIEWER SUGGESTION

It is a prerequisite to submit the manuscript, the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of 4 potential reviewers (When suggesting peer reviewers, please follow these guidelines to avoid any probable conflict of interest. Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain any journal’s high peer review standard. During peer reviewer selection, many factors are considered, like proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation, reputation, specific suggestions, etc. We try to avoid slow, careless reviewers or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). Authors can also identify peers that they want not to review their papers. As far as possible, the editorial team respects requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. As much as possible, we also try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest.

REVIEW PROCESS FLOW

The reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer’s response to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not following the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision.
Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-15 days of receiving the reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But in any case, the revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision, which involves additional experiments, analysis etc.) to maintain this journal’s mission of fast publication. Along with the corrected manuscript, authors must submit a filled ‘review comment form’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The journal’s editor will have exclusive power to make the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript during the peer review process
One of the main policies of this journal is ‘fast spreading of scientific findings by publishing suitable manuscripts within 6 weeks after submission (except some abnormal cases). Under special circumstances, if the review process takes more time, the author(s) will be informed accordingly. The editorial board or referees may re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending revision. Manuscripts with the latest and most significant findings will be handled with the highest priority to be published within a very short time. The journal is determined to promote integrity in research publication. In case of any suspected misconduct, journal management will reserve the right to re-review any manuscript at any stage before final publication.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEW PROCESS

• This journal strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. If you suspect any unethical practice in this manuscript, kindly write it with some proof/web links in the report.
• Studies that are carried out to reconfirm/replicate the results of any previously published paper with a new data set may be considered for publication. But these types of studies should have a ‘clear declaration’ of this matter.
• This publisher believes that no manuscript should be rejected only based on ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often, a journal’s decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer thinks is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to frustrating decisions and delay the publication. The journals will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers judged to be technically sound. Judgments about the importance of any particular paper are then made after publication by the readership (who are the most qualified to determine what is of interest to them).
• Materials and methods (Kindly comment on the suitability and technical standards of the methods. Sufficient details of the methods/process should be provided so that another researcher Acta Traditional Medicine can reproduce the experiments described)
• Results and discussion (Kindly comment on 1. Are the data well controlled and robust? 2. Authors should provide relevant and current references during discussion. 3. Discussion and conclusions should be based on facts and figures. Biased claims should be pointed out. 4. Are statistical analyses must for this paper? If yes, have sufficient and appropriate statistical analyses been carried out?)
• Conclusion (Is the conclusion supported by the data discussed inside the manuscript? Conclusions should not be biased and should be based on the data presented inside the manuscript only. Authors should provide adequate proof for their claims without overselling them)
• Are all the references cited relevant and adequate? Are there any other suitable current references authors need to cite?
• This publisher believes in constructive criticism. Reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language (Unnecessarily harsh words may be modified or removed at the editors’ discretion). It is expected that the reviewers should suggest to the authors how they can strengthen their paper to make it acceptable. The reviewers’ comments should be sufficiently informative and helpful to reach an Editorial Decision. We strongly advise that a negative review should also explain the weaknesses of any manuscript so that the concerned authors can understand the basis of rejection and he/she can improve the manuscript based on those comments. Authors also should not confuse straightforward and true comments with unfair criticism.
• We are very much reluctant to go against the reviewers’ suggestions (particularly on technical areas). Therefore, authors are requested to treat reviewers’ suggestions with utmost importance.
• Appeal: Rejected papers are given the opportunity for a formal appeal. Appeal requests should be made in writing, not by telephone, and should be addressed to submission@actabotanica.org or editor@actabotanica.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. If an author remains unsatisfied, he or she can write to the Editorial Office, citing the manuscript reference number. In all these cases, sometime will likely elapse before the journal can respond, and the paper must not be submitted for publication elsewhere during this time. Authors should provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Academic Editor’s comments. Authors should also be aware that priority is given to new submissions to the journal. So the processing of the appeal may well take longer than the processing of the original submission. If an appeal is rejected, further appeals of the decision will not be considered, and the paper may not be resubmitted.

POST-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW

1. Journal Web sites allow users to comment on articles to facilitate community evaluation and discourse around published articles. The comment section is mainly dedicated to promoting “Post-publication peer review”. Therefore, all journals strictly follow ‘pre-publication OPEN peer review’ and strongly encourage “Post-publication peer review”. As a result of this “Post-publication peer review”,
2. Users, who want to comment, are encouraged to register on the website. But if anybody doesn’t want to register, we’ll respect the decision. To honour ‘free flow of thoughts, ‘unregistered users are also welcome to comment. Social login is also encouraged.
3. At the end of every comment, the user must identify the author by providing information 1. Full Name 2. Name of the Department, University, institute, etc. (This two information will be displayed publicly). We don’t like ‘anonymous’ comments. Comments with ‘forged identity’ will be deleted.

Note: Users must see and agree to our complete Comment Policy