Fungal Diversity
Guidance for reviewers evaluating fungal diversity research
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers help ensure that JFD publishes reliable, reproducible, and impactful research. These guidelines outline expectations for fair, constructive, and timely peer review.
Key Review Criteria
Rigor
Assess whether methods and results are technically sound and reproducible.
Novelty
Evaluate the originality of the contribution and its advancement of mycology.
Clarity
Check whether the manuscript is clearly written, with adequate figures, tables, and explanations.
Impact
Consider relevance to biodiversity, ecology, conservation, or applied outcomes.
Ethics and Confidentiality
Confidentiality: Treat all submissions as confidential. Do not share or use unpublished information for personal gain.
Conflicts of interest: Decline reviews if you have a conflict with the authors or topic.
Constructive tone: Provide respectful, evidence based feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Review Process
Reviews should focus on the technical quality of sampling methods, taxonomic evidence, and validation approaches. Identify weaknesses in experimental design, missing data, or unclear reporting. Provide specific suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.
If you cannot complete a review within the requested timeframe, notify the editorial office promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Timely reviews help authors and maintain the journal schedule.
Reviewer Checklist
Methods
- Are methods clearly described?
- Is sampling design appropriate?
- Are taxa identified properly?
- Are repositories cited?
- Are controls reported?
Results
- Do results support conclusions?
- Are statistics reported clearly?
- Are figures readable and labeled?
- Is data availability stated?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
Impact
- Is the contribution novel?
- Does it advance biodiversity knowledge?
- Is the writing clear and concise?
- Are references appropriate?
- Is the scope aligned?
Best Practices
Provide clear, numbered feedback and distinguish major concerns from minor edits. Highlight areas where additional data or clarification is needed. Avoid personal comments and focus on technical merit and reproducibility. Note any missing voucher information or sequence accessions. Suggest specific fixes for figure labeling when needed and clarity overall.
Timelines and Communication
Reviewers are encouraged to complete reports within the requested timeframe. If you need additional time or must decline, inform the editorial office promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Clear and timely communication keeps authors informed and supports an efficient editorial process for authors and editors globally.
Become a Reviewer
Support the mycology community by providing expert peer review today.
