Review Process

After receiving the invitation email from the Editor, the five steps of the review process are:

1. Read through the manuscript to assess whether you are able and willing to do the review.

2. Notify the Editor as soon as possible whether you are able to perform the review or not. Declare any conflicts of interest that you may have.

3. Conduct your review using the track changes facility in the “Word” programme.

4. Fill out a summary review report in the prescribed format (see below).

5. Submit your Word review report with tracked changes to the Editor as an e-mail with attachments. Make a recommendation to the Editor regarding the manuscript (see outcomes of the review process).

 

Title of manuscript
Author(s)
Reviewer
Date review submitted
Evaluation report      (Please put more details below if appropriate)					Yes/ No
Methodology adequately described and appropriate?
Are the data and results clearly presented and explained?
Figure and Table layouts and captions to normal standards?
Are conclusions statistically robust and supported by the data?
For taxonomic articles is the IUZN Code applied correctly (e.g. types, valid categories, etc?)
Is the discussion informative and relevant?
Is literature adequately cited and valid?
Is there any suspicion of plagiarism?
More details (if necessary)
Manuscript rating Excellent Good Some serious issues to resolve Poor Inappropriate for Metamorphosis			Tick box
Recommended action Accept as it is Accept with minor revisions recommended Significant issues to be addressed Needs major revision and re-review Reject, unsuitable for publication			Tick box

 

Outcomes of the review process

The Editor will evaluate the review reports from the reviewers and make a final decision. The outcome will be categorised as one of the following:

1. Acceptable as is (apart from editorial changes).

2. Acceptable, but requires minor revision (to the satisfaction of the Editor)

3. Requires major revision and reconsideration (will require to be reviewed again).

4. Rejected, not acceptable for publication in the journal.

Author’s responsibilities          

In the event of a peer review outcome in categories 2 or 3 above, the Editor will submit the peer review reports to the senior (or corresponding) author for response and correction. The senior author will respond to the peer review, either by correcting the text or by explaining why correction is not necessary. The revised text/ figures must be resubmitted by the author(s) to the Editor for consideration. Failure to adequately address the issues raised by the reviewers to the Editor’s satisfaction may result in the article(s) being rejected for publication. In the event of any kind of dispute the Editor’s decision is final.

Editor to keep reviewers informed

To keep Reviewers informed on the final decision on the manuscript, the Editor will:

1. At the conclusion of the review, if requested, provide them the review reports of other reviewers.

2. Give feedback on the outcome of a manuscript, and if requested send them a copy of the final article.