• Provisions on peer review
• Regulations on the ethics of scientific publications

Provisions on peer review

All articles submitted to the editorial board undergo a review process. The primary goal of the review is to ensure a rigorous selection of manuscripts for publication and to offer specific recommendations for improvement. This process emphasizes an objective evaluation of the article's content, assesses its alignment with the journal's standards, and provides a thorough analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. Only articles that hold scientific merit and contribute to addressing relevant scientific and economic challenges are approved for publication. The compliance of the manuscript's formatting and submission with the journal's guidelines is assessed separately (see requirements for articles).

Manuscripts, that do not meet the requirements for the design of scientific articles and raise objections from the editorial board at the stage of the initial control, are not allowed to be reviewed and are returned to the author for revision.

The main objective of a review is to ensure the thorough selection of manuscripts for publication, and to provide targeted recommendations for their enhancement. The review process provides a thorough evaluation of the submitted manuscript, focusing on an objective assessment of its content and adherence to the journal's requirements (see Ethical principles of the reviewer).

Manuscripts are reviewed confidentially. The review process is anonymous for both reviewers and authors, and is usually conducted by two independent reviewers. If a reviewer feels that his(her) expertise is not relevant to the topic of the manuscript, he(she) should withdraw from the assignment. Reviewers must also consider potential conflicts of interest, particularly if the manuscript relates to their own research. The manuscript should be treated as a confidential document – its contents must not be shared or discussed with others, except in cases where specialized consultation is required.

When evaluating the manuscript, the reviewer should address the following key questions:

• correspondence of the subject of the manuscript to the scientific directions of the journal;
• relevance of the research topic;
• scientific novelty of the results and their practical significance;
• consistency between the article's title and its content;
• representation in the introduction of the state of the problem and justification of the work;
• appropriateness of the research methods for the stated objectives and sufficiency of their description for reproduction;
• adequacy and reliability of experimental data;
• availability of statistical processing and correctness of applied statistical analysis methods;
• validity of the conclusions made by the authors;
• compliance of the article presentation and design of graphic material with the journal requirements;
• recommendations for improving the manuscript;
• need to reduce the manuscript;
• decision on the possibility (or impossibility) of publishing the reviewed manuscript in a journal.

The reviewer is expected to evaluate the article within 3 weeks from the date of receipt and submit the review to the Editorial Board either in person or via e-mail. If the reviewer is unable to assess the article, a reasoned refusal should be provided within 3 days.

The Editor sums up the feedback from peer reviewers and makes a preliminary decision about the manuscript – to accept it as presented, to require the author's revision in accordance with the reviewer's comments, or to reject it. This decision, along with the reviewers' comments and any additional editorial requirements, is communicated to the corresponding author. If the manuscript can be published after revision, the authors are invited to make the necessary changes and resubmit the revised version. Authors are given 2 weeks to revise the manuscript. The revised version, accompanied by a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and explanations of any changes made, should be returned to the Editorial Office.

Reviewer decisions are not final, and authors have the right to appeal. In such cases, the manuscript may be referred to an independent expert or an adjudicating member of the Editorial Board for further evaluation. The final decision on the appeal is made by the Editorial Board.

If the Editor is satisfied with the scientific aspects of the manuscript, they recommend its acceptance for publication to the Editor-in-Chief. After the Editor-in-Chief’s decision, the Editorial Office sends a formal acceptance notification. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.

The version of the article revised by the author and approved by the reviewers is accepted by the Editorial Board and sent to the Editorial Office for publication preparation. The manuscript is processed by scientific and literary editors, who can recommend the necessary corrections to the text or design of the article. The Editorial Office prepare a draft layout, which is sent to the author for review and final corrections. The version of the manuscript returned by the author is considered final, and no further changes to the text, figures, or tables are allowed.

⇫

REGULATIONS
on the ethics of scientific publications

The Editorial Board of the scientific journal "Plant Physiology and Genetics" in its work adheres to the ethics of international scientific publications, including principles such as integrity, confidentiality, oversight of publications, prevention of potential conflicts of interest etc.

These Regulations were worked out following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) https://www.wame.org/policies and adopted from the experience of esteemed international publishers. Upholding the principles of publication ethics by all parties involved in the publishing process ensures the protection of creators' intellectual property rights, enhances publication quality, and mitigates the risk of potential misuse of copyrighted material for personal gain.

This Regulation aligns with the journal's policy and constitutes one of the primary elements of article review and journal publication.

Responsibilities of authors

The authors bear personal responsibility for the manuscript submitted to the journal and are required to adhere to the following principles:

1. Present accurate and dependable results of the conducted research. Providing false or fraudulent information is unethical and is not acceptable.
2. Upon request from the Editorial Board, furnish baseline data for editorial review. Authors should grant open access to such data and retain it for a reasonable duration following publication.
3. Verify that the research findings presented in the manuscript constitute an independent and original work. When incorporating excerpts from others' work or quoting statements from other authors, proper references must be included, acknowledging the author and the source. Engaging in excessive borrowing and any form of plagiarism, including inadequate references, paraphrasing, or claiming rights to others' research results, is considered unethical and unacceptable. Articles that merely compile material from other authors without incorporating original creative thought and analysis are not accepted by the editorial board.
4. Realize that the author(s) bears responsibility for the initial novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research.
5. Acknowledge the contributions of all individuals who influenced the course of the study or determined the nature of the presented scientific research. This includes referencing publications that were significant to the study. Information obtained privately through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties should not be used without written permission from the source. All sources must be cited openly. Even if written or illustrative material from numerous individuals is used, permission must be obtained and provided to the editor.
6. Submit only original manuscripts to the journal. Do not submit articles that have been sent to another journal and are awaiting review, nor articles previously published in another journal. Failure to adhere to this principle is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in the removal of the article from review. If elements of the manuscript have been previously published, authors are obligated to reference their earlier work and specify how the new work differs significantly. Directly copying or paraphrasing one's own work is unacceptable and should only serve as the basis for new conclusions.
7. Ensure the accurate listing of co-authors. All individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the concept, structure, or conduct and interpretation of results of the work should be included as co-authors. Others who participated in some aspect of the work should be acknowledged. Authors must also ensure that all co-authors have reviewed the final version of the article, approved it, and consented to its submission for publication. All authors share public responsibility for the content of the article. In multidisciplinary works, each co-author is responsible for their own contribution, with collective responsibility for the overall result. It is unacceptable to include individuals as co-authors who were not involved in the research.
8. Promptly inform the journal's editorial board of any significant errors or inaccuracies identified during the review process or immediately after publication. Authors should collaborate with the editorial board to acknowledge and correct errors as soon as possible. If the journal discovers a significant error in a published work, the author must prepare a correction or provide evidence of the information's accuracy for publication in the journal.
9. Clearly indicate in their manuscripts any situations where research involves chemicals, physical and chemical processes, or equipment that pose risks to human or animal health. If the research involves animals or humans as subjects, authors must ensure that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional principles, and that relevant government agencies have granted approval. The paper should include documentation and confirmation from the appropriate authorities regarding consent for human experiments. Respect for the privacy of individuals involved in experiments must always be upheld.
10. Disclose all sources of financial support for the project, information about the employer, patent applications/registrations, grants, and other forms of funding in their manuscripts.
11. Disclose any significant conflicts of interest that could influence the study's results or interpretation in their works. All potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

Ethical principles of the reviewer

The reviewer provides scientific expertise to objectively assess the quality of the submitted article and its adherence to scientific, literary, and ethical standards. When evaluating the article, the reviewer must maintain impartiality and adhere to the following principles:

1. The expert evaluation aims to assist the author in improving the text's quality and to aid the editor-in-chief in making publication decisions.
2. Reviewers who do not consider themselves experts in the subject matter of the article or cannot provide a timely review should notify the editor-in-chief and decline the review.
3. Reviewers cannot be authors or co-authors of the work under review. This restriction also applies to supervisors of candidates for a scientific degree and/or personnel from the author's department.
4. Any manuscripts provided to a reviewer by the editors for review are confidential documents and should not be discussed with anyone other.
5. Reviewers must maintain objectivity and refrain from making personal remarks about the author in their review. Reviews should express viewpoints clearly and reasonably.
6. Reviewers are responsible for identifying published articles relevant to the reviewed article but not cited by the author. Reviewers should alert the chief editor of significant overlap or similarity between the reviewed article and any previously published work. Any statement  in the review that certain observation, conclusion, or argument in the reviewed article have been previously published elsewhere should be accompanied by accurate bibliographic references.
7. If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship issues, or data falsification, they must inform the editorial board for collective consideration of the author's article.
8. Reviewers should provide an objective opinion on the adequacy of citing published articles in the literature related to the given subject.
9. Reviewers must not utilize the information and ideas presented in the reviewed article for personal gain, maintaining confidentiality.
10. Reviewers should refrain from accepting manuscripts for review in cases where a conflict of interest arises due to competition, collaboration, or other relationships with authors or institutions associated with the article.

Ethical principles in the work of the chief editor, editorial board and editorial office

The editorial board members uphold fundamental principles when considering manuscripts for publication:

1. When making a decision on publication, the editor-in-chief of a scientific journal relies on the authenticity of the submitted data and the scientific importance of the reviewed work.
2. The chief editor ensures impartiality, devoid of personal interests, in the acceptance or rejection of articles.
3. The chief editor holds the responsibility of determining which presented articles will be accepted for publication and which will be rejected. The decisions are guided by the journal's policy and adhere to legal principles, thereby preventing copyright infringement and plagiarism.
4. Evaluation of submitted articles by the chief editor is based solely on scientific merit, disregarding factors such as authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious convictions, ethnicity, nationality, origin, social status or political views.
5. The chief editor, along with the editorial and publishing staff and members of the editorial board, should not divulge information contained within the journal article to anyone other than the author(s), assigned and potential reviewers, other editorial staff, and, if required, the publisher.
6. Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts must not be used by the chief editor, the editorial staff, members of the editorial and publishing groups, or the editorial board for personal purposes or shared with third parties without authors’ written permission.
7. The chief editor must refrain from approving the publication of a submitted article if there are valid reasons to suspect plagiarism.
8. Accepted articles are placed in open access with copyright reserved by the authors.
9. The chief editor should not ignore claims related to reviewed manuscripts or published materials. In cases of conflict, necessary steps should be taken in collaboration with the publisher to address infringed rights. Additionally, upon detecting errors, efforts should be made to facilitate the publication of corrections or refutations.
10. The chief editor, along with the editorial staff or the journal's publishing and editorial group, is responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of reviewers' identities and related information.

These principles guide ethical conduct within the editorial board, ensuring integrity and fairness in the publication process.

Ethical principles in publisher activity

The publisher is responsible for the publication of works following these basic principles and procedures:

1. Facilitate fulfillment of ethical obligations by editors, the editorial and publishing team, the editorial board, reviewers, and authors in accordance with these specified requirements.
2. Assist the journal in evaluating claims related to the ethical aspects of published materials and help collaborate with other journals and/or publishers as necessary to support the duties of editors.
3. Maintain the stance that the journal's operations are non-commercial and are not aimed at generating profit.
4. Facilitate the process of publishing corrections, explanations, refutations and apologies as required.
5. Provide the journal an opportunity to retract publications containing plagiarism and inaccurate data.

⇫