Arboriculture & Urban Forestry is an international Open Access journal that publishes high quality research results on the scientific and cultural aspects of the selection, establishment, culture, maintenance, and function of individual trees, as well as on the structure, function, and management of forests in and around human settlements. The journal considers manuscripts on the subjects of tree biology and physiology, entomology, pathology, horticulture, biomechanics, risk management, soil science, inventory and assessment, urban forest functions and benefits, governance, planning and management of urban forests, and utility forestry.
Review Policies and Procedures
To be considered for publication, manuscripts must make a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge in arboriculture and urban forestry and have broad applicability and interest to an international audience. Manuscripts are evaluated for relevance to the journal’s readership, quality, novelty, scientific importance, and accuracy and clarity of presentation.
Blinding
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the identity of the reviewers and the identity of the authors is anonymized. All identifying information in manuscripts submitted to the journal will be blinded by the Editorial Office prior to review.
Review comments meant to be shared with the authors should not contain any identifying information. Reviews should not be signed. Separate, confidential comments can be provided for the handling Associate Editor, which do not need to be anonymized, as they will not be sent to the authors.
If a reviewer wishes to upload an accompanying document with their review, either as a .DOC or .PDF, they should ensure that any identifying information has been removed from both the contents and the properties of the document.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers are asked to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when considering a review request and to decline the request or recuse themselves after agreement if necessary. If the reviewer is certain of the identity of the author(s), they should contact the Editorial Office and recuse themselves from the review in order to preserve the integrity of the blind review process. If the reviewer has any other potential conflicts that they feel may affect the impartiality of their review, they should contact the Editorial Office for guidance.
Review Language
It is expected that all reviews will be constructive and use professional, courteous language. No language deemed to be inappropriate or unconstructive should be submitted. Reviews of an inflammatory nature and/or that do not uphold the integrity of the peer review process may be rescinded and the reviewer uninvited from the task.
Appointment of Reviewers
Reviewers are selected to evaluate papers by the handling Associate Editor. They are chosen based on their expertise related to the contents of the submitted article and (if applicable) their review performance for past assignments. Reviewer reappointments are contingent upon reviewers fulfilling their responsibilities in a timely and effective manner.
Reviewer Responsibilities
The deadline for reviews to be submitted to the system is 2 weeks from the date the reviewer accepts the invitation. Reviewers who cannot provide their review within the requested timeframe should not agree to provide comments. However, requests for extensions to the deadline may be considered and should be directed to the Editorial Office.
Once a reviewer has access to a manuscript, they should review it first for potential conflicts of interest. If the reviewer is certain of the identity of the author(s), they should contact the Editorial Office and recuse themselves from the review in order to preserve the integrity of the blind review process. If the reviewer has any other potential conflicts that they feel may affect the impartiality of their review, they should contact the Editorial Office for guidance.
The manuscript provided to the reviewer is a confidential document and must not be distributed for any purpose other than for the purposes of review. Manuscripts in review should not be shared with colleagues or students, and any electronic or paper versions should be destroyed once the review has been submitted.
Evaluating the Manuscript
The review of all articles submitted to Arboriculture & Urban Forestry is completed using ScholarOne Manuscripts: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/auf. Invitation emails and most invitation and deadline reminders are sent via the ScholarOne system. The invitation email to reviewers contains a series of links by which the reviewer can accept the invitation, decline the invitation, or mark themselves as currently unavailable. Responding to an invitation is a TWO step process. If a reviewer does not respond to an invitation within one week, it is presumed that they are unavailable to evaluate the manuscript.
If a reviewer has been invited to review for the first time, they will need to set up their account before the review can be submitted. It is requested that reviewers ensure their most up-to-date affiliation and contact information is included in the system and that they choose a series of reviewer expertise terms to assist Associate Editors with identifying them for future manuscripts.
If at any point a reviewer has trouble accessing ScholarOne, they can reach out to the Editorial Office to have their username and password be sent to them securely via an automatic email. Alternatively, a password reset can be prompted on the home page by clicking “Reset Password” next to the password field. Make sure to use the email account that was used in the review invitation. A new account should not be created if a password is forgotten.
In the event that an additional account is mistakenly created for a reviewer using an alternate email address from their main account, it is requested that they contact the Editorial Office immediately so that the two accounts can be merged.
Submitting Review Comments to ScholarOne
Once you have logged in to ScholarOne, the Main Menu will be displayed. Please click on the Review icon at the top of the page to enter your Reviewer Center, which will list all available manuscripts to review, your completed reviews, and a history of your review invitations. Click on the dropdown field under “Action” next to the manuscript you wish to review and select “Perform Review” or “Continue Review.”
The review form will automatically save periodically. If you wish to save your progress and return to the review form another time, click either the “Save as Draft” or “Save & Print” icons at the bottom of the review page. Neither of these buttons will submit the review. You must select the “Submit Review” button to send your final comments to the Editorial Office.
Please carefully review the manuscript for its scientific merit, technical quality, novelty, clarity, and relevance to our international readership. Review comments should help the author to revise the paper. Provide a list of specific comments by page and line number, including requests for points of clarification or explanation. Comments of a general, copyediting nature are not sufficient for a thorough review. Please ensure that your review comments are clear, concise, and free of any typos or errors. Think of the kind of review you would like to receive for your own articles when you write your assessment.
All radial fields are required to be completed before a review can be submitted. Basic “Yes” and “No” responses are provided; if the reviewer wishes to address a specific question more in depth, they can select the “See Comment” response. The “Confidential Comments to the Associate Editor/Editor-in-Chief” section can be used for comments that will not be shared with the authors. Please ensure that you also provide comments in the “Comments to the Author” section so that the authors can revise the paper appropriately.
Recommendations
There are four recommendations that a reviewer can suggest to the Associate Editor: Accept, Minor Revision, Substantial Revision, and Reject.
- Accept
The “Accept” recommendation indicates that the paper should be accepted in its present state, with no further revisions required prior to publication. Any comments from the reviewer provided with an “Accept” recommendation are understood to be suggestions rather than requests, and it is at the Associate Editor’s discretion that the authors be expected to address them. It is very rare that the first version of a manuscript be considered acceptable for publication.
- Minor Revision
The “Minor Revision” recommendation indicates that the paper is a good fit for the journal and will be acceptable for publication contingent on the author’s responses to the reviewer’s requested changes. Minor revisions include changes needed to improve the completeness, clarity, and flow of the content, but the credibility of the content is not in question. Manuscripts that are resubmitted after minor revisions may or may not be sent back to the original reviewers at the discretion of the Associate Editor.
- Substantial Revision
The “Substantial Revision” recommendation indicates that the paper has the potential to be improved upon and ultimately accepted, but that significant work must be performed by the authors to achieve acceptance. Manuscripts that are resubmitted after substantial revisions will be sent back to the same reviewers so that the author’s changes can best be evaluated. Authors will be requested to provide detailed responses to all reviewer comments, both those that they addressed and those that they chose not to address, to assist with the additional round(s) of review. There is no commitment from the journal to ultimately accept a paper that is resubmitted after substantial revisions.Papers that are not likely to be improved enough for ultimate acceptance or that are simply not a good fit for the journal should not be recommended for substantial revisions, as this wastes author, editor, reviewer, and editorial staff time and resources.
- Reject
The “Reject” recommendation indicates that the paper is not a good fit for the journal and cannot be improved through revision because of the unsuitability of its subject matter and/or substantial deficiencies in the research and/or presentation.
Comments from reviewers and the Associate Editor's recommendation are provided to the authors via email. The final decision on all manuscripts is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewer Resources
Publons
The International Society of Arboriculture is a partner of Publons and allows reviewers to claim their work for Arboriculture & Urban Forestry via the Publons Reviewer Recognition program. Researchers the world over use Publons to effortlessly track their valuable peer review contributions for any journal. If you opt in, your Publons profile will automatically be updated to show a verified record of your reviews in full compliance with the journal's review policy. If you don't have a Publons profile, you will be prompted to create a free account. Opting in can be done directly on the review form for any review you agree to complete for the journal.
Learn more about Publons.
Other Resources
For more information on completing a high-quality review, consult the following resources:
Web of Science Academy
Wiley Reviewer Resources
Contact Us
Questions relating to any of the above guidelines may be directed to the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry Managing Editor:
Lindsey E. Mitchell
Managing Editor
[email protected]
International Society of Arboriculture
270 Peachtree St NW, Suite 1900
Atlanta, GA 30303
United States of America