Guidelines for reviewers

A rigorous review process (i) ensures that authors meet the highest standards of experimental design, data analysis and reporting and (ii) establishes that articles published in OENO One are reliable. For agronomy papers, experiments/observations should cover at least 2 years. Under particular circumstances (no possible replication, clear-cut data and cautious conclusions), some manuscripts may be accepted with only one-year observations.

1. Types of articles

OENO One publishes seven types of articles: original papers, research notes, reviews, mini-reviews, short communications, opinions and letters. 

1. Original 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 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 focus 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: 3,000 words, 6 tables and figures combined + 50 references, describing work that may be of a preliminary nature but which merits immediate publication.
5. Opinions: viewpoints of about 1,200 words on any subject covered by the Aims and Scope, 4 figures and tables combined.
6. Letters: published from time to time on matters of topical interest or for response, 800 words, 2 figures and tables combined. 

2. Referees’ obligations

The following summarizes the main obligations for referees:

1. Objectivity: Only accept an invitation to review a manuscript if you can do so without bias. Conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to: (i) giving an author too little or too much respect, (ii) having a stake (financial, personal, or professional) in whether the manuscript is published, (iii) having recently co-authored an article with one of the authors (in the last 5 years), or (iv) collaborating with one of the authors at the time of the review (even on another topic).
2. Timeliness: OENO One asks referees to complete their reviews within three weeks. If you feel that you cannot review a manuscript in a timely manner, please decline. Accepting the review means respecting the deadline.
3. Expertise: Referees are selected based on expertise and act as advisors to the Associate-Editor. Referees 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 should be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers shall not discuss or disclose information to anyone outside the 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, referees 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 meeting abstracts or when the data are re-used to conduct a completely different analysis (micro-arrays or RNA-seq data for example). « Submitted » or « in-press » papers cited in the manuscript may be requested from the referees. Finally, the role of the referees is also to assess whether previous data and relevant work from other groups are properly cited and recognized.
6. Conflict of interest statement: All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.
7. Ethics in publishing: Duties of authors are defined and concerns - Reporting standards - Data access and retention, originality and plagiarism, multiple, redundant or concurrent publication, acknowledgement of sources, authorship of the paper, hazards and human or animal subjects, disclosure and conflicts of interest, fundamental errors in published works. Ethical consent has been obtained in case of work on animals and/or humans.
8. Writing the review: The main purpose of the review report is to help the Editor 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 organized into two distinct sections (see 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 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 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. Referees 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 copy-editing process.
9. Layout of the review are asked to provide an anonymous “Comments to the author” report and a confidential “Comments to the Editor” report.

3. “Comments to the authors” report

Your “Comments to the authors” report should be arranged as follows:

 3.1. General comments

• Three introductory sentences:

1. This manuscript addresses the TOPIC
2. The authors focus on the QUESTION
3. Their strategy/methods consist in…

• Two sentences summarizing your general assessment:

1. The strong points of the manuscript are…
2. The weak points of the manuscript are…                                     

3.2. Your recommendation

1. Reject (does not adhere to OENO One’s standards)
2. Revise - major revisions (should address the following points before re-submission)
3. Revise - minor revisions (should be re-organized/re-formatted before re-submission)
4. Accept without revision (meets OENO One’s publication criteria based on the quality of research and writing)

3.3. 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

4) “Comments to the Editor” report

Your “Comments to the Editor” is a confidential report and should include:

Your recommendation (reviewers are asked to briefly explain their decision)

1. Reject (does not adhere to OENO One’s standards)
2. Revise - major revision (should address the following substantial points before re-submission)
3. Revise - minor revision (should be re-organized/re-formatted before re-submission)
4. Accept without revision (meets the OENO One publication criteria based on the quality of research and writing) 

5) Final evaluation

Evaluation