Zoological Records and Reviews follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. The journal is committed to maintaining integrity, fairness, and confidentiality throughout the evaluation process.
1. Review Model
The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which both the identities of the authors and reviewers are kept confidential. This approach minimizes bias and ensures an objective assessment of the manuscript.
2. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of zoology or related disciplines. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and previous publication record.
3. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to critically evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:
- Originality and novelty of the research
- Scientific rigor and methodology
- Clarity of presentation and organization
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Validity of results and conclusions
- Adequacy of references and literature review
4. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluation, reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following:
- Accept as it is
- Accept with minor revisions
- Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
- Reject
5. Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor considers the reviewers’ comments and makes the final decision. In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, an additional reviewer may be consulted.
6. Revision and Re-evaluation
Authors are required to address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further assessment.
7. Confidentiality and Ethics
All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, avoid conflicts of interest, and provide unbiased and constructive feedback. Any ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data fabrication, are handled according to standard publishing guidelines.
8. Timeliness
The journal strives to complete the peer review process efficiently, typically within a reasonable timeframe, while maintaining the quality and thoroughness of the evaluation.
This peer review process ensures that all published articles in Zoological Records and Reviews meet the highest academic and ethical standards.