For reviewers

Peer Review Process

The main aim of peer review process is to verify the accuracy and reliability of the manuscript's content, and to request author (where it is needed) to correct the manuscript according to standards adopted in certain scientific area and according to Guidelines for Authors of the Journal.
The Editorial Board requests the reviewer to take into account the aim and tasks of the journal «Nature Conservation Research» related to nature conservation in general, and in particular - scientific studies in Protected Areas either studies of rare and endangered taxa of flora and fauna.

The main reasons for rejection of the article are:

  • Discrepancy with thematic of journal.
  • The absence of objective assessment of the current state of affairs on subject of the article.
  • The lack of novelty in article in comparison with previously published works in certain scientific field.
  • Exclusively descriptive nature of the work without any data analysis and arising from it conclusion(s).
  • If the submitted material has already been published in other scientific printed and / or electronic publications.

Discrepancy with above conditions will be reason for rejection of manuscript only in case if the authors themselves do not see this discrepancy, if they cannot explain it and if they do not correct these problem causes during the processing of manuscript after receiving of reviewers' comments.

Mismatch of personal opinion of the reviewer with opinion of author in article cannot be considered as a reason for rejection of manuscript.

The peer review policy of the journal «Nature Conservation Research» involves the anonymity of reviewers and authors with respect to one another (double blind peer review).

Reviewing is carried out confidentially. We do not involve experts who work in the same institution where the work was carried out, either where one (or more) author(s) works.

Opinion of the reviewer is not final. The result of the review process is the recommendation of the reviewer. The Editor-in-chief (or whole Editorial Board if it necessary) makes final decision on publication / rejection of the manuscript, as well as on the order of its placement in the journal. If opinions of Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board and Reviewers do not match, then the manuscript will be sent to the third expert for further (additional) review.

Manuscript, directed to the author for revision, must be returned during one month. Additionally, author(s) must present the corresponding letter containing answers to all comments of reviewers and this letter should explain all changes made in the article.

Order of Peer Review Process

- Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor decides on the choice of reviewers for certain manuscript according to subject of the manuscript.

- Manuscript is sent to two experts for reviewing of the manuscript (taking into account anonimity of author (s)).

- The result of the review process is the recommendation of the reviewer.

- Nominated reviewer should check the manuscript over one month (30 days) and then he should forward the recommendation to the Editorial Board.

- The reviews on manuscript containing all the comments and suggestions of reviewers are sent to the author (taking into account the anonimity of reviewers). Additionally, the Editoral Board has the right to create its own review, containing recommendations concerning the structure of the manuscript and its compliance to the Guidelines for Authors.

- After receiving of the results of reviewing, author must prepare all necessary materials: 1) manuscript corrected in accordance with remarks and comments of the reviewers; 2) files with detailed answers to the comments and remarkss of reviewers (one file for each of the reviewers).

- Revised manuscript is sent for re-review.

- In a case if all reviews are positive Editor-in-Chief (or Editorial Board) makes the final decision about the publication of manuscript.

- In a case of negative review, author gets the reasoned decision on rejection.

- If the author does not agree with the decision, the author may send the reasoned response to the Editorial Board. And it will be reviewed by Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.


Kind regards,

Editorial Board of the journal

«Nature Conservation Research»