Skip Navigation

Science-based acceptance criteria

Peer Review Criteria

Papers published in AoB PLANTS will need to meet the following minimum criteria to the satisfaction of referees and editors.

1 The purpose or hypothesis behind the work is clear.

2 The writing style and standard of English make the science clear. Authors are encouraged to be succinct. The paper may benefit from professional help with the language if English is not the authors' first language.

3 The Introduction and Conclusions, in particular, are understandable to non-specialists.

4 Title, Abstract, Introduction, Results, and Discussion are appropriate in length for their factual content and together make a well-integrated whole. Authors are expected to submit cohesive and understandable manuscripts with the length of the various sections in reasonable balance.

5 Paper improves or convincingly reinforces our understanding of the subject. Papers can be of broad or specialist interest and describe original findings or challenge previous research. Papers that confirm earlier studies may also be acceptable but commonplace and predictable work with no clear outcome will not be acceptable.

6 Experimental methods are appropriate and sufficiently detailed. Experimental methods and statistical analysis must be sufficiently powerful to address the problem effectively. Techniques should be described in enough detail for the work to be evaluated and repeated successfully by others. Especially lengthy descriptions can be submitted as ‘Additional Information’.

7 Authors’ claims are supported by the results. AoB PLANTS does not make highly subjective assessments of manuscripts and authors are responsible for their own views. However, exaggerated, unreasonable or unscholarly claims of significance are not acceptable.

8 The paper encourages further experimentation or debate.

9 Authors acknowledge previous relevant publications. It is essential that authors cite previous papers on which the current work is based and avoid excessive use of review articles rather than primary research papers. Articles reporting similar and/or contradictory results should also be included.