Peer Review

Reviewing procedure

1. All new submissions are initially assessed by the Editors-in-Chief to determine their suitability for the journal. Following a positive preliminary assessment, all scientific manuscripts are reviewed by at least two referees. The reviewers are appointed by the Associate Editors, who are themselves appointed by the Editors-in-Chief.

2. The reviewers are experts in the subject areas addressed by the article or in the relevant scientific field. At least one reviewer must be affiliated with an institution located in a country other than that of the author. The Associate Editors ensure that there are no conflicts of interest between the reviewers and the authors. The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors.

3. The review outcome is provided in written form. Reviewers are also asked to complete a standardized questionnaire. Each review includes a clear recommendation on whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.

4. Acceptance of a manuscript for publication requires two positive reviews from external reviewers, whereas two negative reviews result in rejection. If the two initial reviews yield conflicting conclusions, a third reviewer is appointed. The third reviewer’s assessment is decisive.

5. Following the review process, the authors are informed of the evaluation results. If revisions are required, authors are given the opportunity to revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments.

6. Authors are expected to implement the necessary revisions as indicated by the reviewers. In the event of disagreement, the authors must submit a written response to the reviewers’ comments. The Associate Editor will evaluate whether the authors have provided adequate justification for any disagreement with the reviewers’ suggested revisions.

7. At the reviewers’ request, the revised manuscript may undergo an additional review to assess the adequacy of the corrections made.

8. Once the revised manuscript, including all required revisions, is resubmitted, the Associate Editors provide a recommendation to the Editors-in-Chief. The final decision to publish is made by the Editors-in-Chief, based on the recommendation of the Associate Editors and the reviewers' feedback.

9. Manuscripts submitted by Editors or members of the Editorial Board are treated with the same rigor and impartiality as all other submissions to Plant and Fungal Systematics. Every effort is made to eliminate potential conflicts of interest at all stages of the editorial process, including the assignment of a handling editor, selection of reviewers, decision-making, and, if applicable, the publication process.

10. Once per year, a list of reviewers who contributed during the calendar year is published on the journal’s website and in a printed issue of the journal.