1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the academic quality, credibility, and integrity of Zoological Records and Reviews. The journal relies on expert reviewers to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that support editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve their work.

2. Scope of Review

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts within their area of expertise and evaluate submissions based on:

• Scientific quality and originality
• Methodological rigor and validity
• Ethical compliance
• Relevance to zoological and related biological sciences
• Clarity, structure, and scholarly presentation

Reviewers should not assess manuscripts outside their competence and are encouraged to decline invitations when appropriate.

3. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts with others without editorial permission
• Use unpublished data or ideas for personal research
• Discuss the content with third parties

Confidentiality applies both during and after the review process.

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review. Conflicts may arise from:

• Personal or professional relationships with authors
• Financial or institutional affiliations
• Competitive or collaborative research interests

If a conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review invitation.

5. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews should be conducted objectively and fairly. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should base their comments solely on the scientific merit of the work, regardless of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal beliefs.

6. Ethical Responsibility

Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues, including:

• Plagiarism or excessive text overlap
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Redundant or duplicate publication
• Unethical research practices

Any concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor, not directly to the authors.

7. Structure of the Review

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their reports clearly and constructively, addressing:

• Overall assessment of the manuscript
• Major strengths and weaknesses
• Specific comments on methodology, results, and interpretation
• Suggestions for improvement
• Clarity of language and presentation

Comments should be specific, actionable, and respectful.

8. Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept without revision
• Accept with minor revisions
• Major revisions required
• Reject

Recommendations should be supported by clear reasoning. Final editorial decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to submit their reviews within the agreed timeframe. If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

Timely reviews contribute to an efficient and fair publication process.

10. Anonymity

Zoological Records and Reviews follows a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers should avoid including information in their comments that could reveal their identity.

11. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers should not upload manuscripts to generative AI tools or external platforms that may compromise confidentiality. Any use of digital tools must respect data protection and ethical standards.

12. Acknowledgment of Reviewers

The journal values the contribution of reviewers and may acknowledge their service periodically, without compromising reviewer anonymity, in accordance with journal policy.

13. Communication with the Editorial Office

Reviewers are encouraged to communicate openly with the editorial office regarding:

• Questions about the review process
• Ethical concerns
• Requests for deadline extensions

All communications are handled confidentially.

14. Adherence to Ethical Standards

These Reviewer Guidelines are based on the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and reflect best practices in scholarly publishing.