Guidelines for reviewers

This page presents the scientific items you need to conduct your review as follows: 

Reviewers are invited by the Associate Editor via the OENO One platform (OJS). For any technical questions about logging or submitting your review form, please see the page "How to submit a review on OJS?" or contact the editorial team.

___________________

TYPES OF ARTICLES TO REVIEW

A rigorous review process ensures that authors meet the highest standards of experimental design, data analysis and reporting and establishes that articles published in OENO One are reliable. For agronomy papers, experiments or observations should cover a minimum of two years. Under exceptional circumstances, manuscripts reporting one year observations may be accepted when replication is not possible, the results are clear-cut, and the conclusions are suitably cautious.

OENO One publishes several types of articles: original papers, research notes, reviews, mini-reviews, short communications, opinions and letters. Articles are published under the viticulture, oenology and special issue sections.

  1. Original research articles: These papers report and interpret findings related to all fields of grape and wine research: ecophysiology (soil-vine interactions, climate-vine interactions) and climate change; grapevine genetics and biotechnologies; vine protection, sustainability and modelling; management and innovation of viticultural techniques; plant physiology and genomics; table grapes, dried grapes and unfermented grape products; technology, processes, oenological products and winemaking; microbiology, biotechnology, biochemistry and genomics of yeast and bacteria; chemistry of macromolecules and volatile compounds (polyphenols, aromas, etc); analytical methods for grape and wine control; wine ageing, stabilisation and conservation; additives and processing aids; sensory analysis; distilled beverages from grapes; and food safety, consumption, nutrition and health.
  2. Reviews articles: They provide a comprehensive assessment of a broad topic of research and may express the authors’ own opinion. Before writing/submitting a review, it is recommended to contact the journal to determine the relevance of the topic.
  3. Mini-reviews articles: This focuses on a clearly defined topic and may typically be issued from the introductory part of Ph.D. manuscripts, provided they meet the journal’s standards of scientific quality and originality.
  4. Short communications: These manuscripts describe work that may be of a preliminary nature, but which merits immediate publication.
  5. Opinions & letters: Opinion articles present an author’s perspective on topics that fall within the journal’s Aims and Scope. Letters are concise submissions that address timely issues or provide responses to previously published work.

___________________

REVIEWERS OBLIGATIONS

The following summarises the main obligations for referees:

1. Objectivity

Only accept an invitation to review a manuscript if you can do so without bias. Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: (i) holding either undue admiration or criticism toward an author, (ii) having a personal, financial, or professional interest in the outcome of the review, (iii) having co-authored a publication with one of the authors within the past five years, or (iv) currently collaborating with an author, even on a different project.

2. Timeliness

OENO One asks reviewers to meet the following deadlines: one week to respond to the invitation (accept or decline), three weeks to submit the review form. Specific deadlines will apply for special issues.

Accepting the review means respecting the deadline. If initially, the invited reviewer cannot respect the timeline, the invitation must be declined. If, after accepting, the reviewer is ultimately no longer available, it is advisable to notify the editor and the editorial team as soon as possible to ensure the the editorial process runs smoothly.

3. Expertise

Reviewers are selected based on expertise and act as advisors to the Associate Editor. They are responsible for: (i) evaluating the rigour and originality of the science and the clarity of the writing, (ii) checking that the work meets the journal’s quality standards, and (iii) helping the authors make their work more rigorous, complete, and clearly presented. If you feel that you cannot provide an appropriate review, please decline.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or disclose any content or information with anyone outside of the formal review process.

5. Originality/plagiarism

Special care should be taken to ensure originality. Manuscripts submitted to OENO One should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere and should report original research. Although the journal uses specific anti-plagiarism devices, reviewers may quickly check for plagiarism by comparing the submitted manuscript with previous publications by the same author(s). No duplication of previously published work, extensive copying of text, data (figure vs. table and vice-versa) is allowed, except for conference abstracts or when the data are re-used to conduct a completely different analysis (for example micro-arrays or RNA-seq data). « Submitted » or « in-press » papers cited in the manuscript may be requested from the reviewers.

Finally, the role of the reviewers is also to assess whether previous data and relevant work from other groups are properly cited and recognised.

6. Ethics in publishing

See the page IVES rules of ethical conduct to download the instructions to follow:

All participants assigned on a submission (editors, reviewers or authors) are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organisations that  could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, the work of the authors.

Authors are expected to adhere to established ethical standards in all aspects of their work. This includes responsibilities relating to reporting standards, data access and retention, originality and plagiarism, and avoiding multiple, redundant or simultaneous submissions. Authors must properly acknowledge sources, accurately reflect authorship contributions and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Research involving human or animal subjects must comply with relevant ethical guidelines, and documented ethical approval must be obtained. Authors are also responsible for promptly correcting any significant errors identified in published work.

Any use of artificial intelligence tools during peer review must be disclosed to the editors. Reviewers must not upload any complete or partial manuscript files or related materials submitted to OENO One to the AI-based tools or platforms that use submitted content to train or improve their models. Doing so can lead to data leakage and may result compromise the authors confidentiality, the originality of the work and writing, and the authors rights, including copyright.  

Reviewers are also expected to provide a personal and substantive evaluation. Generative AI tools may not be used as a substitute for the reviewer’s own analysis, judgement and written assessment.

7. Writing the review

The main purpose of the review report is to help the Editors (Associate Editor and Editors-in-chief) make a final decision about the manuscript.

The report should start with a positive statement highlighting the authors’ research efforts and the main findings. It should include your overall impression of the manuscript and address both the positive (strengths) and negative (weaknesses) aspects. Comments to the authors should be organised into distinct sections (see next chapter below), differentiating suggestions that you consider essential from those that could be part of a future study. Reviews should be written in a respectful and constructive, yet critical, manner. OENO One encourages a fair and rigorous peer-review process but does not approve unreasonable and obstructive reviews (for example, requesting additional experiments that are not necessary to support the study’s main conclusions).

The review must be a personal contribution. The use of artificial intelligence tools in doing a review have to be declared to the editors.

The second purpose of the review process is to provide constructive suggestions to authors on how to strengthen the manuscript and the research: clarity, readability, quality of writing, terminology, experimental details, figures, tables, overall presentation, length, references, etc. Reviewers are asked to provide clear, detailed suggestions without going into in-depth editing. Keep in mind that all final revised OENO One manuscripts will go through the journal’s copyediting process.

8. Review structure and anonymity

Reviewers are asked to submit an online form including an anonymous “Comments to the author” report and a confidential “Comments to the Editor” report.

As single-blind review process, all reviewers' files must be anonymised and must not contain any reviewers’ names. Please note that the documents you may upload can be sent as attachements to the authors at the moment of the editorial decision with the rest of the form. That's why, the journal asks your vigilance on this crucial matter.

Technical guidance is available throughout the process and on the ‘How to submit a review on OJS’ page.

___________________

WARNING: BEFORE ACCEPTING THE INVITATION

Before accepting the review invitation sent by the Associate Editor, the reviewer must:

  1. Ensure your availabilities: Make sure you have enough time to complete the review and submit it within the deadlines before accepting the invitation.
  2. Record your submitted form: Once the form is submitted and registered on the platform, no copy will be sent to you by email. However, you can access your form directly on the platform for the current round only and without the ability to edit it.
    Go to your dashboard and click the “View” button for the corresponding submission, then check the “3. Download & Review” tab.
    Please note that submitted reviews are not accessible between rounds. If you are invited a second time for the same article (in Round 2, for example), your Round 1 form will no longer be accessible on your dashboard. We can send your archive to you by email upon request.
  3. Save for later: Once the review is recorded on the platform, the form cannot be modified. We therefore encourage you to proofread your evaluation before submitting it. As a reminder, the “Save for Later” button allows you to save your review in progress before submitting it.
  4. Respect the rules of ethical conduct: The new version of the review form is a single integrated review document compiling all the elements of your review through text fields only, with no file uploads required. For any separate files, please ensure that they are anonymized before uploading them to the system.

As a reminder, the rules for ethical conducts have to be respected and followed.

___________________

EVALUATION GRID AND REPORT TO SUBMIT

The online form allows you to send your recommendations and comments to authors and editors in one single document. 

1. Comments to the authors report

This part of the form will be sent to the authors at the time of the editorial decision as follows: 

1.1. Overview and general recommendation

  • Three introductory sentences:
    1. This manuscript examines (TOPIC)
    2. The authors investigate (RESEARCH QUESTION/HYPOTHESIS)
    3. To address this, they use (METHODS/APPROACH)
  • Two sentences for your overall assessment:
    1. The main strengths of the manuscript are (KEY STRENGTHS)
    2. The main weaknesses of the manuscript are…(KEY WEAKNESSES/LIMITATIONS)

1.2. Specific comments

Comments to authors should be numbered. Here are some examples of specific comments:

  1. p.XX, line Y, unclear, please rephrase
  2. p. ZZ, line W, this statement is not completely supported by experimental results
  3. fig.1, please improve the figure/legend

1.3. Evaluation grid

The following criteria will be evaluated using four rating levels: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Poor. 

  • Originality
  • Accuracy and precision of the title
  • Concision of the abstract in the language of the text
  • Relevance of methods to the objectives
  • Pertinence of discussion and conclusion with the results
  • Grammar and English language
  • Quality of tables and figures
  • Selection and use of references (APA style)

The evaluation grid must be completed in the online form by checking the corresponding boxes.

1.4. Reviewer's recommendation comments

The reviewer’s final recommendation is recorded by selecting one of the following options:  Accept submission, Revisions required (minor modifications), Resubmit for review (major modifications), Decline with encouragement to resubmit (Resubmit elsewhere), Decline submission. 

  1. Accept submission: The manuscript is accepted without revision. It meets the OENO One publication criteria based on the quality of research and writing).
  2. Revisions required (minor modifications): The manuscript requires minor revisions. Before resubmission, the authors should reorganise and reformat the manuscript to improve clarity and ensure it complies with the journal’s guidelines).
  3. Resubmit for review (major modifications): The manuscript requires major revisions. The authors should address the substantial points listed below before resubmitting a revised version. A further round of peer review may be initiated at the editors’ discretion, once the revised manuscript has been submitted and assessed by the editors.
  4. Decline with possibility to resubmit: The manuscript does not currently meet OENO One’s standards for publication. The authors are encouraged to substantially revise the work and consider submitting it to another journal. A new submission to OENO One may be considered only if the manuscript has been significantly improved and fully aligned with the journal’s requirements.
  5. Decline submission: The manuscript does not currently meet OENO One’s standards for publication and is therefore unable to accept it for publication.

To record your decision in OJS, please select the same recommendation again from the Recommendation drop-down menu.

2. Comments to the editors report

Reviewers are asked to briefly explain their decision to the editors. This part of the form is a confidential report and will not be shared with the authors. Use the free text field to add any information they consider relevant.

3. Additional comments

In this section, you must register your recommendation: this is the final mandatory step. This section also allows the reviewers to add a file (Upload) or start a discussion with your editor (Review discussions). These are optional and not mandatory.

A file should only be uploaded that it is not possible to add comments directly to the review form. For any files uploaded, ensure that they are fully anonymised and contain no identifying information. See details on our website "How to submit a review?".

___________________

Contact for technical support: editorialsecretary@oeno-one.eu