Peer Review Process
Our rigorous, constructive peer review ensures published research meets the highest standards of zoological science.
Overview
The Journal of Zoological Research employs rigorous peer review for all submitted manuscripts, ensuring published research meets international standards for scientific accuracy, methodological soundness, and contribution significance. Our process balances thorough evaluation with timely decisions, supporting authors through constructive feedback that strengthens their work regardless of final publication outcome.
We typically complete initial reviews within six to eight weeks from submission, though complex manuscripts requiring specialized expertise may occasionally take longer. Authors receive detailed decision letters summarizing reviewer assessments and editorial recommendations, with clear guidance for revision when applicable.
Review Process Stages
Initial Screening
Editorial staff verify manuscript completeness, formatting compliance, and scope alignment. Submissions outside our scope or requiring substantial revision before review are returned promptly with guidance.
Reviewer Assignment
Handling editors identify reviewers with relevant taxonomic or methodological expertise. We invite at least two independent reviewers per manuscript, ensuring diverse perspectives on scientific merit.
Expert Evaluation
Reviewers assess scientific soundness, methodological rigor, data quality, analytical validity, presentation clarity, and contribution significance. For taxonomic works, compliance with ICZN guidelines receives careful attention.
Editorial Decision
Handling editors synthesize reviewer recommendations into decision letters. Outcomes include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection with detailed feedback supporting author development.
Double-Blind Review
We use double-blind review where practical, with author identities concealed from reviewers and vice versa. This approach reduces potential bias and ensures manuscripts are evaluated on scientific merit alone. Authors should prepare blinded versions removing identifying information from the main document, though transparent authorship returns upon acceptance.
Reviewer Selection Criteria
We carefully match reviewers to manuscripts based on taxonomic expertise, methodological familiarity, and research domain relevance. Editors avoid selecting reviewers with potential conflicts of interest including recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, or competitive relationships with authors. Our diverse reviewer network spans geographic regions and career stages, incorporating perspectives from established experts and emerging researchers.
Constructive Feedback Philosophy
We encourage reviewers to provide constructive criticism that helps authors improve their work. Effective reviews identify both strengths and weaknesses, explaining why particular approaches may be problematic while suggesting concrete improvements. This mentorship-oriented approach supports scientific development throughout our community, particularly benefiting early-career researchers navigating peer review for the first time.
Revision and Appeals
Authors receiving revision decisions should address all reviewer comments systematically, providing point-by-point responses. Major revisions typically undergo additional review while minor revisions are often evaluated by editors directly. Authors disagreeing with specific reviewer suggestions may respectfully explain their reasoning, with editors making final determinations based on scientific validity of both perspectives.
Rejected manuscripts may be appealed if authors believe reviewers misunderstood key aspects or applied inappropriate standards. Appeals receive consideration from senior editors who assess whether reconsideration is warranted based on substantive concerns rather than simple disagreement with outcomes.
Timeline Expectations
We commit to providing initial decisions within eight weeks for most manuscripts, though complex reviews occasionally require additional time. Authors receive regular status updates throughout the process, and editors proactively address delays by recruiting additional reviewers when needed. Rush review options are available for time-sensitive discoveries upon editorial approval, though expedited timelines maintain full rigor.
Revision periods typically range from two to six weeks depending on revision extent required. Extensions are granted upon reasonable request, particularly for revisions requiring additional experiments or substantial data collection. Authors experiencing delays should communicate proactively with handling editors rather than simply missing deadlines.
Reviewer Recognition
We deeply appreciate the volunteer efforts of reviewers who make peer review possible. Reviewers receive formal acknowledgment in annual reviewer recognition lists published in the journal. Exceptional reviewers demonstrating consistent thoroughness and constructive feedback may be invited to join our editorial board, providing pathways for professional development while strengthening our evaluation capacity.
Verified reviewer certificates are provided upon request, documenting completed evaluations for professional portfolios. We participate in reviewer crediting initiatives enabling recognition across publishing platforms, acknowledging that skilled reviewing represents significant scholarly contribution deserving explicit credit.
Continuous Improvement
We regularly evaluate our review processes to identify improvement opportunities. Author feedback surveys help identify pain points, while reviewer training resources address common evaluation challenges. Our commitment to fair, timely, and constructive review remains central to journal operations, recognizing that peer review quality ultimately determines publication credibility and author satisfaction with their publishing experience.
Ethics in Peer Review
We maintain strict confidentiality throughout review, with manuscripts treated as privileged communications. Reviewers must not share or discuss submissions without editorial permission, and must recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts exist. Our policies align with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, ensuring transparent and fair evaluation that serves the zoological research community with integrity and professionalism.
Contact Editorial Office
Questions about review status, timeline concerns, or process clarifications should be directed to our editorial office. We respond promptly to author inquiries and maintain transparency about manuscript progress throughout the entire manuscript evaluation process from initial submission through to final editorial decision notification.
