The reviewing process of each submitted article is usually conducted by more than seven professional and technical referees. In the submission of the relevant article, the corresponding author is frequently asked to introduce five professional reviewers. Sometimes and according to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the submitted article is sent to these reviewers in addition to other expert reviewers that are chosen regarding their specialty through a comprehensive research in scientific databases. In many cases, the permanent editorial and advisory board members have grades and admirable contribution to the referee process of different submitted articles to the TPR journal. For the reviewers that are invited for the first time to perform the reviewing process, the following points and hints seem to be of great help for having a satisfied professional review.

Dear Reviewers of the “Trends in Phytochemical Research (TPR)” Journal

First, I should express my special thanks for your valuable time dedicated to deal reviewing processes of the submitted article to the TPR journal.

In your reviewing process, the full package concerning the "instruction for authors" is available on the official website of the journal.

The articles having the following keywords fall within the scope of our journal, TPR:

Phytochemistry; Essential Oils; Natural Products; Phytomedicine; Pharmacognosy; Flavor, Perfumes and Cosmetics; Botanical Science; Food Chemistry; Pharmaceutical Formulations and Herbal Drugs; Biotransformation; Biological Activities of the Essential Oils and Extracts: Antioxidants, Antibacterial, Antifungal and other activities, Total Phenolic Contents (TPC), Total Flavonoid Contents (TFC), etc.

To be accepted for publication in TPR, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

1. The study should present the results of an exhaustive scientific research.

2. The reported results have not been published elsewhere and therefore the submitted article must be original.           
3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.          
4. The Conclusion Remarks are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.
6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.
7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.8. The reference section includes references being organized exactly according to the general guidelines of the TPR your journal. For your further convenience, please kindly consider the general guidelines to the authors of this journal.

9. If it is possible, please include Highlights and the Graphical Abstract in your professional reviewing process. 

10. Please kindly let me know your specific comments and suggestions concerning the general layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, suggested method or procedure, statistical features and tests, results and discussion concluding remarks, language and references. 

11. Very important and critical point: If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, please kindly raise your suspicions with us, providing as much detail as possible.

12. According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.

13. Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).

14.  Since the general reviewing process of the submitted articles to the TPR journal is “Double-Blind Peer Review” in which both the authors and the reviewers are unaware of the identity of each other, please be advised to prepare your further exclusive comments for the editors as an additional attachment or in a separate email message and kindly make sure that your identity or affiliation is not included in the sent documents.

15. Please be advised that all the contents of each submitted article for which you have been selected as the professional reviewer, is confidential until the publication of this article. Of course, If the article is being rejected by the TPR journal, your technical hints and comments will not be confidential.

16. Due to the direct excess of the reviewers to the word file of each submitted article and because of making the required general and technical comments by the referees on the submitted word file, it is highly recommended to each reviewer to remove the relevant information, affiliation and name prior to the submission of the reviewing sheet to the TPR journal.


Finally, I do believe that our expert reviewers greatly contribute to the high standards of the TPR journal, and I hereby cordially thank you for your present and/or future participation.

Prof. Dr. Majid Mohammadhosseini, Ph.D.

Editor-in-Chief of "Trends in Phytochemical Research (TPR)"

ISSN Print: 2588-3623

ISSN Online: 2588-3631