An International Scientific Journal dealing with Applied and Fundamental Research on Submerged, Floating and Emergent Plants in Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
Peer Review Policy for Aquatic Botany
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of Aquatic Botany and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organisers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
• Is original
• Is methodologically sound
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly references previous relevant work
Referees are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 1 month. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Becoming a Referee for Aquatic Botany
If you are not currently a referee for Aquatic Botany but would like to be added to the list of referees for this title, please contact the editorial office at aqbot@elsevier.com. The benefits of refereeing for Aquatic Botany include the opportunity to see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for Aquatic Botany as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.
Reviewer's Home - our online resource for reviewers
Advice for reviewers. Information on reviewing. Questions answered. Sign up for our new quarterly e-update.
24 Jul 2008
Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association Accepted for Coverage in MEDLINE
Inclusion means improved access to the Journal for researchers and practitioners worldwide > more
24 Jul 2008
Neurotherapeutics Presents Special Issue on New Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease
State-of-the-Art Update to Be Available at ICAD 2008 in Chicago > more
23 Jul 2008
Elsevier partners with the International Association for Great Lakes Research
New partnership to publish the Journal of Great Lakes Research > more
