Peer review guidelines

Dear reviewers!

The editorial board of the Botanical Journal thanks you for agreeing to participate in improving the quality of articles published in our journal.

Single-blind reviewing is the primary accepted format of our journal, but if you find it advisable and justified to open your name to the author, the editorial board will support your decision.

Please assess the following in your review:
— The originality and novelty of the study and its results as described in the manuscript;
— The presentation and correct application of the methods used in the study;
— The consistency of the results with the goals and objectives of the study;
— The sufficiency of material and the validity of the conclusions;
— The rationality of the article’s volume (the volume of the text corresponds to the volume of the material, or the text is excessively verbose, or the presentation is too brief and does not allow for the proper presentation of the material). Please, provide a detailed justification if a reduction or expansion is proposed;
— The sufficiency and completeness of accounting and citing of literature on the research topic, the availability of unjustified or excessive citations of literature;
— The sufficiency and justification for the illustrative materials and tables;
— Usage of correct form and style for the presentation of the material;
— The title of the article corresponds to its content;
— Inclusion of an informative and sufficient summary of the article.
For taxonomic articles, please also pay attention to the correct application of the nomenclature rules.

Please, mark in the conclusion your recommendation (with a brief justification):
— The manuscript can be published in the form presented;
— The manuscript can be published with minor (technical) corrections;
— The manuscript can be published after substantial processing;
— The manuscript is not recommended for publication (conclusions are not reliable or incorrect, the material is not sufficient for substantiated conclusions, the application of methods is erroneous, the presentation does not comply with accepted standards, etc.).

We ask you to send a review to the Secretary of the Editorial Board of the Botanical Journal; ( within a month.

Please let us know if for any reason you do not have the opportunity to write a review of the manuscript sent. In this case, we will be grateful if you can recommend another reviewer (please indicate the full name and contact details of the recommended substitute reviewer).

If you have the opportunity to write a review, but you need additional time, please let us know about this before the end of the review period.

Editorial Board of the Botanical Journal