For Reviewers

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.

Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. The editor decides; a review informs that decision.

Accept only where you have the expertise to judge the work and the time to do it properly. Decline where a conflict exists — recent co-authorship, shared institution or funding, a personal relationship, or a competing interest in the outcome — and say so; suggesting an alternative reviewer is welcome.

Assess whether the design, sampling, analysis and reporting support the conclusions drawn. An observational study, a synthesis, a methods contribution and a modeling paper each have their own standards, and a review should apply the one that fits.

Novelty, an experimental design, a large sample or a causal claim are not requirements in themselves. A careful descriptive study, a negative result or a confirmatory finding can be a sound contribution.

Whether the ecological question is clear; whether the methods are reported in enough detail to be repeated, including sites, dates, effort and replication; whether the analysis suits the data; whether the conclusions stay within what the results support; and whether the literature is used fairly.

Note any ethical concern you see: missing approvals or permits, sensitive species locations published without restriction, signs of duplicate publication, or data or images that appear altered.

Be specific and constructive. Separate what must be addressed from what would improve the manuscript, and give reasons an author can act on. Write about the work, not the authors.

A recommendation to the editor is helpful, but the decision rests with the editor. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.

A manuscript under review is confidential. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its content for any purpose. If you wish to involve a colleague or a student in the review, ask the editor first and name them.

After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.

For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors. Where identifying information has been left in by accident, tell the editor rather than acting on it.

Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial or reviewer roles. A reviewer who becomes aware of any such arrangement should disregard it and inform the editor.