Peer Review Process

Peer Review Guidelines

All research articles and most other manuscript types submitted to the Journal of Zoology and Systematics (JZS) undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process involving at least two independent expert reviewers.

Submissions first undergo a quality check for completeness and compliance before being sent to an Editor to evaluate their suitability for peer review. The editorial board retains full responsibility for maintaining the scientific quality of the journal. If an Editor has a conflict of interest, such as being an author or having any other competing interest with the manuscript, another Editorial Board member will be appointed to oversee the peer review. Editors consider peer review reports carefully but are not bound to follow reviewers’ recommendations. Authors receive all peer review reports along with the editorial decision.

Type of Peer Review

Journal of Zoology and Systematics uses a double-blind peer review model. In this process, both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other, ensuring impartial evaluation and minimizing bias. Editors are aware of all identities to manage the review effectively but maintain confidentiality throughout.

Editorial Structure and Roles

  • Editor-in-Chief: Oversees the editorial team, defines journal policies, and has the final say on publication decisions and journal direction.
  • Executive Editor: Manages the daily operations of the journal, coordinates the editorial team, and acts as a liaison between the journal and authors.
  • Associate Editors (AEs): Subject matter experts who handle assigned manuscripts by managing the peer review process, requesting revisions where appropriate, assessing manuscript quality, and making recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief on acceptance or rejection.
  • Guest Editors: Appointed for special issues or thematic collections, these editors ensure the quality of invited content, with approval decisions resting with the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Reviewers:Experts who provide critical, constructive feedback and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. The final publication decision rests with the editor but reviewers play a significant role in determining the outcome.

Peer Review and Editorial Workflow

The following outlines the typical review process for manuscripts submitted to Journal of Zoology and Systematics:

Step 1. Initial Quality Check (Timeline: ≤1 week)

The submission undergoes a completeness check and plagiarism screening using Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15% (excluding references) will be rejected due to potential plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Step 2. Editorial Evaluation (Timeline: ≤1 week)

The Editor-in-Chief assesses the manuscript for scientific merit and scope alignment. Manuscripts may be rejected outright, returned for major revision, or assigned to an Associate Editor for further handling.

Step 3. Reviewer Assignment (Timeline: 1–2 weeks)

The handling Associate Editor selects at least two expert reviewers, based on expertise and past performance, and invites them to review the manuscript.

Step 4. Review Period (Timeline: 3-4 weeks)

Reviewers have a 28-day deadline to submit their reports. Upon receiving the reviews, the Associate Editor evaluates the feedback and makes one of five recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief:

  • Acceptance
  • Acceptance with minor revisions (to be completed within 14 days)
  • Major revisions (within 1 month)
  • Rejection with encouragement to revise and resubmit (resubmission allowed within 6 months)
  • Rejection without reconsideration

Step 5. Final Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief considers the Associate Editor’s recommendation and makes the final decision. The editorial office communicates the decision and review reports to all authors.

Step 6. Post-Decision Steps

  • Manuscripts requiring major revisions undergo a second review round by the original reviewers, with a 2-week review deadline. Failure to adequately address comments may result in rejection.
  • Manuscripts with minor revisions may be assessed by the Associate Editor without further external review.
  • Resubmitted manuscripts following encouragement to revise may be reviewed by the same or different reviewers or editors.
  • Accepted manuscripts proceed to production, including copyediting, figure editing, typesetting, and author proofing via an e-proofing platform.

Special issue manuscripts follow the same peer review protocol.

While timelines are provided as guidance, delays may occur depending on reviewer availability and other factors.

Appeal Process

Appeals will be considered individually and must be submitted in writing to the journal’s editorial office at dr.laibakhan92@gmail.com. Appeals based solely on novelty or scope are unlikely to be upheld.