Forestry and Forest Melioration applies a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published research.
- Review Model
The journal uses a single-blind peer review system, in which:
- reviewers remain anonymous to the authors;
- reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities;
- each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
- Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes a preliminary evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief to determine:
- relevance to the journal’s scope;
- compliance with submission guidelines;
- originality and scientific value;
- absence of obvious ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism).
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
- Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
- subject-matter expertise;
- academic qualifications and research experience;
- absence of conflicts of interest.
- Review Process
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the following criteria (see Notes For Reviewers):
- scientific originality and relevance;
- methodological soundness;
- validity and reliability of results;
- clarity and structure of the manuscript;
- adequacy of references and citations;
- compliance with ethical standards.
Reviewers provide a written report with constructive comments and one of the following recommendations:
- accept without revision
- accept with minor revisions
- reconsider after major revisions
- reject.
- Decision-Making
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports.
In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be invited.
The possible editorial decisions include:
- acceptance;
- minor revision;
- major revision;
- rejection.
- Revision Process
Authors are required to:
- revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewers’ comments;
- provide a detailed response to each comment.
Revised manuscripts may be sent for re-review if necessary.
A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript are normally provided. If more rounds are required according to the reviewers, Executive Editor should request a decision from the Editor-in-Chief.
If the journal’s Editorial Office is unable to maintain communication with the author during the manuscript review or production process, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript following a designated period of inactivity
- Timeline
- Initial editorial screening: up to 5 working days
- Peer review process: typically up to 2 weeks
- Revision by authors: typically up to 2 weeks
- When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers are asked to provide their report within 5 working days. Extensions can also be granted upon request
- Final decision: after completion of the review and revision stages.
The editorial board strives to ensure a timely and efficient review process.
- Ethical Standards
All participants in the peer review process must adhere to publication ethics:
- reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents
- reviewers must provide objective and unbiased assessments
- conflicts of interest must be disclosed
- any suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data manipulation, etc.) must be reported to the editorial office.
Editorial Board Members (including Editor-in-Chief) are not involved in the processing of their own academic work. Their submissions are assigned and revised by at least two independent reviewers. Decisions are made by other Editorial Board Members who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors.
The journal follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).