1. Editorial Independence
Zoological Records and Reviews operates with full editorial independence. All editorial decisions are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board based on scholarly merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and methodological rigor.
The Publisher does not influence editorial decisions, peer review outcomes, or acceptance criteria. Commercial interests, publication fees, or external pressures have no role in the editorial decision-making process.
2. Editorial Structure and Responsibilities
The journal is governed by an Editor-in-Chief supported by an international Editorial Board consisting of subject experts in zoology and related biological sciences. Editors are responsible for:
- Upholding academic quality and ethical standards
- Managing the peer review process
- Ensuring timely and fair editorial decisions
- Maintaining confidentiality throughout the editorial process
- Addressing ethical concerns or disputes
Editorial Board members are selected based on academic expertise, publication record, and commitment to ethical scholarly publishing.
3. Scope and Editorial Criteria
The journal publishes original research articles, review papers, short communications, and scholarly discussions that contribute to the understanding of zoological sciences, including but not limited to animal biology, taxonomy, ecology, behavior, conservation, and evolutionary studies.
Manuscripts are evaluated based on:
- Scientific originality and significance
- Methodological soundness and reproducibility
- Ethical compliance
- Clarity and coherence of presentation
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Submissions that fall outside the scope or fail to meet minimum scholarly standards may be rejected without external review.
4. Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to Zoological Records and Reviews undergo a double-blind peer review process. Reviewer identities are concealed from authors, and author identities are concealed from reviewers to ensure impartial evaluation.
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts. Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ reports, editorial judgment, and the manuscript’s overall quality.
The journal strives to provide constructive feedback and timely decisions while maintaining rigorous review standards.
5. Editorial Decision-Making
Final editorial decisions fall into one of the following categories:
- Acceptance
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Rejection
Editors may request revisions to improve clarity, structure, or scientific quality. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript meets all editorial, ethical, and technical requirements.
6. Ethical Standards and Research Integrity
The journal adheres to internationally recognized publication ethics, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editors are responsible for identifying and addressing potential ethical issues such as:
- Plagiarism
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Duplicate or redundant publication
- Improper authorship practices
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism detection tools prior to review.
7. Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect their objectivity. Where a conflict exists, alternative editors or reviewers are assigned.
Editorial decisions are made solely on academic grounds, independent of financial, institutional, or personal interests.
8. Confidentiality
Editors and reviewers treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information obtained during the peer review process is not shared or used for personal advantage.
9. Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Actions
The journal takes responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. When errors, ethical concerns, or misconduct are identified, the journal may issue:
- Corrections
- Retractions
- Expressions of concern
Such actions are conducted transparently and in accordance with COPE guidelines.
10. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are reviewed objectively and may involve additional editorial or external assessment.
Complaints regarding editorial conduct or ethical issues are handled promptly, fairly, and confidentially.
11. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Zoological Records and Reviews is committed to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusivity in editorial practices. Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, or political beliefs.
12. Continuous Improvement
The Editorial Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing, indexing requirements, and ethical standards.