Fungal Diversity
Editorial policies that protect integrity and support high quality mycology
Editorial Policies
JFD follows transparent editorial policies to ensure fairness, rigor, and ethical publishing. Our processes are designed to support high quality fungal diversity research while maintaining clear standards for peer review, integrity, and author responsibilities.
Peer Review Model
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening for scope, originality, and basic quality standards. Suitable manuscripts are sent for expert peer review by specialists in taxonomy, ecology, genomics, pathology, or applied mycology relevant to the work.
Editors select reviewers based on subject expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviews focus on methodological rigor, reproducibility, clarity of reporting, and the significance of contributions to fungal diversity science. We aim for balanced, evidence based recommendations and clear revision guidance and consistency.
Editorial Decision Stages
Initial Screening
- Scope alignment with journal mission
- Originality and relevance review
- Basic formatting verification
- Ethics statement confirmation
- Decision to send for review
Peer Review
- Reviewer invitation and acceptance
- Detailed methodological assessment
- Recommendations for revision
- Author response and resubmission
- Editorial decision based on reviews
Production
- Final files and proof review
- DOI registration and metadata
- Publication in open access format
- Indexing and discovery support
- Post publication corrections if needed
Ethics and Integrity
Originality
Manuscripts must be original and not under review elsewhere. JFD uses similarity checks to detect overlap and maintain research integrity.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence evaluation or interpretation.
Ethical Approvals
Studies involving human or animal subjects require documented ethics approval and adherence to relevant regulatory standards.
Data Transparency
Authors should provide data availability statements and share datasets where possible to support reproducibility and validation.
Transparency and Open Access
JFD publishes accepted articles as open access under a clear Creative Commons license. This ensures that readers can access and reuse content with attribution, supporting collaboration across academia and industry. Open access also improves discoverability for biodiversity and conservation teams.
Authors receive clear communication throughout the review process, including guidance on revisions and decision rationale. Authors are notified at each stage. We aim for timely editorial handling while maintaining thorough evaluation of technical rigor and reproducibility.
Handling Research Misconduct
Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical conduct are investigated according to publication ethics guidelines. JFD may request supporting documentation, contact institutions when necessary, and issue corrections or retractions to protect the scholarly record.
Author Responsibilities
All listed authors must meet authorship criteria and approve the final submission. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the editorial office and for ensuring that contributions are accurately represented.
Manuscripts must include statements on funding, conflicts of interest, and data availability. Any reuse of third party content requires appropriate permissions and clear citation.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe a decision was based on factual misunderstandings may submit an appeal with a clear, evidence based response. Complaints about editorial process or reviewer conduct are reviewed by senior editors to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to ethical standards.
Corrections, Retractions, and Appeals
Corrections: If errors are identified after publication, JFD will issue corrections to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
Retractions: In cases of serious misconduct or unreliable findings, retractions may be issued in accordance with publication ethics standards.
Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear justification. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors to ensure fairness.
Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and avoid using unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage. Reviews should be constructive, respectful, and focused on technical merit.
Editors ensure that reviewer comments are appropriate and that decisions are based on evidence, not preference. The journal is committed to timely communication and transparent editorial outcomes.
Reviewer identities are handled confidentially, and the editorial office monitors timeliness and quality. Constructive reviews that improve clarity and rigor are essential to maintaining the journal standard.
Publish with Confidence
Our editorial policies support fairness, transparency, and research integrity. Contact the editorial office if you have questions about ethical or procedural requirements.
