For Reviewers
Peer-Reviewed · Open Access · Animal and Wildlife Research
For Reviewers
International Journal of Animal and Wildlife Research (IJAWR)
The International Journal of Animal and Wildlife Research (IJAWR) uses a structured double-blind peer-review process for manuscripts submitted for publication. Manuscripts are reviewed by independent academic experts with appropriate knowledge of the subject.
Reviewers are an important part of the editorial process and help the journal maintain the academic quality, scientific reliability, and integrity of its published work.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
Read and assess manuscripts objectively and independently.
Provide clear, constructive, and unbiased comments.
Consider the scientific, academic, and ethical standards relevant to the manuscript.
Assess the appropriateness of research methods, data interpretation, species identification, and conservation-related conclusions where relevant.
Disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
Keep the manuscript and all review-related information confidential.
Accept a review only when they have the appropriate expertise and sufficient time to complete it.
Inform the editorial team as soon as possible if they are unable to complete a review or feel that they cannot provide a fair and impartial assessment.
Further information about reviewer ethics and professional conduct is provided in the Reviewer Conduct policy.
Double-Blind Peer Review
IJAWR follows a double-blind peer-review system, under which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other, to the extent practicable.
Reviewers are selected according to the subject of the manuscript, their academic or professional expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. IJAWR normally seeks reviews from two or more independent subject-matter reviewers for each manuscript.
A detailed description of the review process is available in the Peer Review Process policy.
Evaluation of Manuscripts
Reviewers should focus their comments on the scientific and academic content of the manuscript. Their feedback should help the editors make an informed decision and, where appropriate, help authors improve the manuscript.
Depending on the subject, reviewers may consider the suitability of the research design, field or laboratory methods, statistical analysis, interpretation of animal observations, biodiversity assessments, wildlife survey results, and conservation implications.
Where relevant, reviewers may also identify concerns regarding animal welfare, ethical approval, research permits, data reliability, image integrity, or the handling of sensitive information about threatened species and habitats.
The main criteria used during peer review are described in the Peer Review Process policy.
Review Invitations
IJAWR sends review invitations based on the subject of the manuscript and the reviewer's expertise and availability. Potential conflicts of interest are also considered before an invitation is made.
If a reviewer is unable to complete an assigned review within the agreed timeframe, they should inform the editorial team as early as possible.
Reviewer Information and Records
To manage peer-review assignments and related editorial activities, IJAWR may collect and maintain information about reviewers, including:
Name.
Institutional affiliation.
Professional email address.
Academic or professional expertise.
ORCID or other researcher identifier, where provided.
Review reports and editorial comments.
Communication records relating to manuscript reviews.
Peer-review records may be retained for editorial, quality-control, publication-ethics, and recordkeeping purposes, subject to applicable privacy and data-protection requirements.
Information about how reviewer data is collected and used is provided in the journal's Privacy Policy.
Concerns and Complaints
Concerns about reviewer conduct, possible conflicts of interest, or breaches of confidentiality may be reported to the editorial team.
Such concerns are considered in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals policy.
For further information about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, appropriate use of the review system, and reviewer conduct, please see the Reviewer Conduct policy.
This policy is informed by relevant guidance and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable.