1. Purpose of Peer Review

Zoological Records and Reviews is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review plays a central role in ensuring the quality, originality, validity, and significance of all published content.

The peer review process supports authors by providing constructive feedback and assists editors in making informed and unbiased editorial decisions.

2. Type of Peer Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which:

• The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers
• The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors

This approach is intended to ensure impartial evaluation based solely on scholarly merit, without influence from personal, institutional, or geographic factors.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office and/or handling editor to assess:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with submission guidelines
• Basic methodological soundness
• Ethical compliance
• Originality and plagiarism screening

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements or fall outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage without external review.

4. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts passing initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on:

• Academic qualifications and publication record
• Relevant research experience
• Absence of conflicts of interest

The journal strives to maintain diversity in reviewer selection, including geographic and institutional diversity.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to the field
• Scientific rigor and methodological validity
• Ethical considerations and compliance
• Clarity, organization, and quality of presentation
• Adequacy of references and scholarly context
• Relevance to zoological sciences and the journal’s scope

Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, respectful, and detailed feedback to support manuscript improvement.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest
• Provide objective, evidence-based assessments
• Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe
• Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage

Failure to adhere to ethical review practices may result in removal from the reviewer database.

7. Editorial Decision Process

Based on reviewer reports and editorial evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Reject

Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial decision. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of revisions.

8. Revisions and Resubmission

Authors are expected to address reviewer comments thoroughly and transparently. A point-by-point response to reviewer feedback is required for revised submissions.

Failure to adequately address comments may result in rejection.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment. If a conflict is identified, an alternative editor or reviewer is assigned to ensure objectivity.

10. Confidentiality and Data Protection

All information related to submitted manuscripts is treated as confidential. Manuscripts and reviewer reports are accessed only by authorized editorial staff and reviewers involved in the evaluation process.

Personal data are handled in accordance with the journal’s Privacy Policy.

11. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct

The journal follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns identified during peer review are investigated thoroughly.

Appropriate actions, including rejection or notification of institutions, may be taken when misconduct is confirmed.

12. Peer Review Integrity and Transparency

The journal does not allow authors to influence reviewer selection improperly. Reviewer suggestions may be considered at the editor’s discretion but are not guaranteed.

The journal does not engage in fake, rapid, or compromised peer review practices.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals are handled objectively and may involve additional independent review.

Complaints regarding peer review conduct are addressed confidentially and in accordance with COPE recommendations.

14. Continuous Review Improvement