Journal info (provided by editor)

Issues per year
Articles published last year
Manuscripts received last year
% accepted last year
% immediately rejected last year
Open access status
open access
Manuscript handling fee?
Kind of complaint procedure
Disciplines: Botany, Agronomy

Aims and Scope

The mission of Plant Phenomics is to publish novel research that will advance all aspects of plant phenotyping from the cell to the plant population levels using innovative combinations of sensor systems and data analytics. Plant Phenomics aims also to connect phenomics to other science domains, such as genomics, genetics, physiology, molecular biology, bioinformatics, statistics, mathematics, and computer sciences. Plant Phenomics should thus contribute to advance plant sciences and agriculture/forestry/horticulture by addressing key scientific challenges in the area of plant phenomics.

The scope of the journal covers the latest technologies in plant phenotyping for data acquisition, data management, data interpretation, modeling, and their practical applications for crop cultivation,

SciRev ratings (provided by authors) (based on 2 reviews)

Duration of manuscript handling phases
Duration first review round 3.8 mnths compare →
Total handling time accepted manuscripts 4.6 mnths compare →
Decision time immediate rejection n/a compare →
Characteristics of peer review process
Average number of review reports 2.5 compare →
Average number of review rounds 1.5 compare →
Quality of review reports 3.0 compare →
Difficulty of reviewer comments 3.0 compare →
Overall rating manuscript handling 2.0 (range 0-5) compare →

Latest review

First review round: 24.0 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

The beginning of the reviewing process was delayed, but probably because of the COVID-19 problems at that time. After the first revision, the processing was significantly faster. I am very much satisfied with the reviewer's and the editors' competence and engagement. Because the opinions of the two reviewers in the first review round were not entirely in agreement with each other, the Editor-in-Chief got involved with an additional, pretty comprehensive review. All three reviewers suggested major but very meaningful corrections. After resubmission of the revised manuscript, it went over a new round of revision of both reviewers plus the editor, and the manuscript was finally accepted with minor revisions. I am pretty optimistic about the future of this new journal if they manage to keep such a high quality of reviewing as in the case of our manuscript.