Review process

All scientific papers submitted for publication to the ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE – RJH  are subject to a double blind review process.
For all papers an abstract has to be submitted for preliminary evaluation of the Scientific Committee of the journal.
Final fulltext of the scientific papers are submitted by the Editor to the Editorial Board for scientific review.
Only fulltext papers accepted by the Editor(s) after scientific review are published in RJH.
Contributions will be reviewed by 2-3 national and international experts in the given field. The scientific reviewers and members of the Editorial board are well-known experts in their field of activity (including academics, professors, senior lecturers and researchers).
The main objective of the scientific evaluation is for all the papers accepted for publication to have a high value of scientific content and bring significant and original contributions to the specific topic.

Reviewers will evaluate the articles based on the following criteria:

• contribution should comply with the Guide for authors document;
• journal requirements – structure, form, content, scientific relevance;
• scientific contribution in the field corresponds to the topics of the journal;
• the paper is original and brings new aspects, opinions, methods, contributions to the field;
• careful experimental design (replications, controls, randomization, etc.) and adequate statistical methods of analysis;
• clearly presented and argued results;
• relevant and up-to-date bibliographical references.

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system. The entire editorial process — including manuscript submission, peer review, author revisions, editorial decisions, and final acceptance — is conducted exclusively through the journal platform.
Authors are required to monitor their submission status through their online account.
Peer Review Type
The Romanian Journal of Horticulture applies a double-blind peer review process. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities during the evaluation process.
Initial Evaluation
Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief to verify:
•    relevance to the journal’s scope
•    compliance with the Guide for Authors and formatting requirements
•    adherence to ethical standards
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected prior to external peer review.
Peer Review Procedure
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to two or three national or international experts in the relevant field of horticulture. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are expected to provide objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations.
Review Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
•    scientific originality and contribution to the field
•    methodological rigor and validity of data
•    clarity of objectives and research design
•    quality and relevance of references
•    clarity of presentation and organization
•    relevance to the journal scope
Review Timeline
The average time for the peer review process is approximately 6–10 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the Editor-in-Chief’s evaluation, manuscripts may be:
•    Accepted without revision
•    Accepted with minor revisions
•    Accepted with major revisions
•    Rejected
Authors receive reviewer comments through the online system and are invited to submit revised versions via the platform when required.
The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief.