Reviewer Guidelines
Standards and expectations for peer reviewers at ZR
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, taxonomic accuracy, and methodological rigor. Reviews should be constructive, identifying strengths and weaknesses while providing specific, actionable suggestions for improvement relevant to zoological research.
- Respond to review invitations within 48 hours
- Complete reviews within agreed timelines (typically 14-21 days)
- Provide thorough, balanced assessments of scientific quality
- Evaluate taxonomic accuracy and nomenclatural compliance
- Identify methodological concerns with specific recommendations
- Recommend appropriate editorial decisions with justification
Taxonomic Review
When reviewing species descriptions, verify ICZN compliance, adequacy of diagnosis, appropriate type designations, and quality of comparative material. Ensure new names are properly formed and not preoccupied. Assess whether holotype and paratype designations are clear and specimens properly deposited.
Ethical Standards
Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content. Decline invitations when conflicts of interest exist. Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Report suspected misconduct to handling editors confidentially. Your expertise ensures quality publication advancing zoological knowledge.
Timeliness: Authors depend on timely reviews for career advancement. If you cannot complete a review within the timeframe, decline promptly so alternatives can be engaged for zoological manuscript evaluation.
Taxonomic Review
When reviewing species descriptions, verify ICZN compliance, adequacy of diagnosis, appropriate type designations, and quality of comparative material. Ensure new names are properly formed and not preoccupied. Assess whether holotype and paratype designations are clear with specimens properly deposited in recognized collections.
Evaluate whether diagnostic characters distinguish the new species from similar taxa. Assess quality of specimen images and morphological measurements.
Constructive Feedback
Balanced reviews acknowledge manuscript strengths while identifying areas needing improvement. Constructive recommendations help authors develop work advancing understanding of animal biology. Consider both what the manuscript achieves and how it could be improved for zoological readers and conservation practitioners.
Quality peer review advances zoological scholarship through fair evaluation and constructive feedback helping authors improve research communications. Your expertise ensures rigorous assessment of submitted manuscripts benefiting the scientific community and wildlife conservation. Thank you for your service to ZR.
Your thoughtful evaluation advances both individual manuscripts and broader zoological literature. We appreciate the expertise and time you contribute maintaining quality.
