The peer review procedure includes a description of the review type, reviewer selection criteria, deadlines, documentation forms, and decision-making processes.

1. The journal Plant Genetic Resources accepts original experimental and comprehensive review articles for publication.
2. Submitted materials must tightly align with the journal’s scientific profile: Agricultural Sciences.
3. All incoming manuscripts are registered by the editorial office, logging the date of receipt, authors' full names, institutional affiliations, contact details (valid email required), and the manuscript title.
4. The Editorial Board will not consider manuscripts that fail to comply with the authors' submission guidelines.
5. The journal adheres to a strict double-blind peer review system. The editorial office reserves the right (upon consultation with the author) to copyedit, condense, or reject a manuscript based on negative reviewer reports if the paper does not match the journal's profile or exhibits insufficient scientific or reporting quality. In the event of rejection, the editorial office sends the author a reasoned notification.
6. Reviewers are required to submit their evaluation report within three weeks of receiving the manuscript. If a reviewer fails to meet this deadline, the manuscript will be reassigned to an alternative expert.
7. If revisions are recommended, the text of the review report is sent to the corresponding author with all reviewer identity details strictly omitted.
8. Revised manuscripts must be returned by the authors to the editorial office within one calendar month from the date the review report was sent. Manuscripts not returned within this timeframe will be rejected. Such papers can only be re-submitted as new submissions on general terms.
9. Revised or modified manuscripts are sent back to the reviewers along with the original version for re-evaluation as quickly as possible.
10. Manuscripts previously published or currently under consideration by other scientific venues will not be accepted.

The Journal operates a double-blind peer review scheme, meaning that reviewer identities are concealed from authors. However, reviewers may choose to make their reports publicly available (with or without identity disclosure) to enhance transparency. Full research articles require a minimum of two independent external peer review reports. For more details, please consult our Reviewer Guidelines. The Handling Editor makes final editorial decisions based on the recommendations of external reviewers and editorial board members, where appropriate.