Peer Review Process

The Journal of Zoology and Systematics (JZS) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process managed entirely through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The Editorial Board is fully responsible for ensuring the scientific integrity and quality of all published work.

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, formatting, and plagiarism before being sent to an Editor for evaluation. The Editorial Board maintains full responsibility for the scientific quality of the journal. If an Editor has a conflict of interest, such as being an author of the manuscript or having a competing interest, another Editorial Board member is appointed to oversee the peer review. Editors consider reviewer reports carefully but are not obligated to follow their recommendations. Authors receive all peer review reports along with the editorial decision.

All manuscripts, reviewer identities, and review reports are treated confidentially throughout the review process.

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.

Journal Management System (OJS) Integration

The journal uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform for managing the entire editorial workflow. OJS is used for:

  • Online manuscript submission
  • Initial screening
  • Reviewer selection and invitations
  • Double-blind peer review
  • Editorial decisions (accept/reject/revise)
  • Tracking revisions and resubmissions
  • Communication between editors, reviewers, and authors

All editorial and peer review actions are recorded electronically through the system, ensuring transparency and traceability.

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.
  • Managing Editor: Manages the daily operations of the journal, coordinates the editorial team, and acts as a liaison between the journal and authors.
  • Editorial Board members: 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.

Ethical Compliance Requirements

Manuscripts involving animals, humans, or sensitive biological material must include an ethical approval statement from an appropriate institutional review board. Submissions are also screened for:

  • Research integrity
  • Data fabrication or manipulation
  • Duplicate publication
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Appeal Process

Misconduct and COPE Compliance

  • JZS follows COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for handling allegations of:
  • Plagiarism
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Unethical rsearch practices
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Manuscripts found to violate ethical or integrity standards may be rejected or withdrawn.

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 must provide clear justification and evidence. Appeals based solely on claims of novelty or scope alignment are unlikely to be upheld.