About journal

Botanic gardens are institutions holding documented collections of living plants for the purpose of scientific research, conservation, display and education (BGCI).

The international journal of botanical gardens 'Hortus Botanicus' was created in 2001 with the aim of developing relationships between botanical gardens - unique centers for the conservation and study of the genetic resources of plants on the Earth.

Aims & Scope of the Hortus Botanicus

Understanding the unique multifunctionality of botanical gardens as socially oriented scientific and educational institutes, ‘Hortus Botanicus’ publishes materials on scientific, educational and social activities of botanical gardens of the world. We accept articles on plant preservation, mobilization and introduction, gardening and landscaping.

‘Hortus Botanicus’ publishes: extensive lists of plants, analytical reviews of botanical gardens’ activities, information about collections, brief reports on conferences, research projects and ideas, essays on the history of botany, botanical journeys and other activities of botanical gardens. We are interested in all works of botanical gardens’ employees.

Journal's sections

• Hypotheses, Discoveries and Technologies
• Botanical Gardens: Past and Present
• Structure of Plant Diversity
• Conservation, Mobilization and Study of Plant Genetic Resources
• Harmony of Garden
• Nature of Botanc Gardens
• Information Technology for Botanic Gardens
• Conference and Travel
• New Books and Websites
• Literary Gardening
• Events of the Year
• Glass of Water
• Editoral Note

Publication Ethics

The ethics statements for the  ‘Hortus Botanicus’ are based on the Code of Conductand Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Responsibilities of Editors

The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief confers with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

The editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The Editor-in-Chief should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The Editor-in-Chief should recuse himself  from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Responsibilities of Reviewer

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief  in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Reviewers should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.

Responsibilities of Author

The authors are responsible for the content of the article. All results should be represented by authors accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. If some part of the submitted article were published the author is obliged to make sufficient comments and references in the paper. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission.

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to notify promptly the journal’s editors and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

Peer Review Policy

In ‘Hortus Botanicus’, we use a two-phase unilateral semiblind review method: the reviewer knows the author’s name, but the author doesn’t know who the reviewer is. We do the second phase of the review in case of a negative first review and in the case when we need a reviewer from another scientific area.

Only the leading specialists in the area of the manuscript are invited as reviewers. Reviewing usually takes three-four months. The experts' decision is  sent to the authors. In case of the positive decision authors are asked to present improved manuscripts with the reviewers’ remarks taken into account.

The form of a review, filled on the website, has all the main criteria for assessment.  

The reviewer’s surname may be published at will of the reviewer.  

‘Hortus Botanicus’ is an open access journal.

The contents of the Journal are available to users free of charge. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author.

• Publication in the journal is free of charge.
• Author(s) hold copyrights and publishing rights without restrictions.
• Editorial Boards decides on publishing an article on basis of a review.
• The period from the time of receiving a submitted article to the time of its publication ranges from 3 weeks to 6 months.

Journal's instructions for authors

Frequency of publication

The Journal is published once a year in one volume, with thematic enclosures.

Articles are published continuously in the course of the year, as soon as they are ready to be published. The volume’s indexation and page numbering is made at the end of the year.