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.
  • Inability or unwillingness of authors to provide sufficient explanations to the reviewers' comments or failure to respond within the stipulated time could lead to outright rejection.

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.

The 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 the final decision on publication/rejection of the manuscript, as well as on the order of its placement in the journal. If the opinions of the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, and Reviewers do not match, then the manuscript will be sent to the third expert for further (additional) review.

The journal Nature Conservation Research the account in the Publons: To recognize the contribution of the invited reviewers in the development of the journal Nature Conservation Research, the Editorial staff sends the message(s) with Publons-recognitions to each reviewer invited for estimation of each manuscript. A reviewer receives one recognition letter per each peer-review stage when he/she provided his/her recommendation about the reviewed manuscript. The messages are being sent only after the final acceptance or rejection of the reviewed manuscript. For reviewers' consideration, on the platform Publons, there are no titles of the manuscripts, which are reviewed by experts; just the case of this reviewing for our Journal is demonstrated.

The 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

- Once a manuscript is submitted, Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor with help of Subject Editor estimate a preliminary review of the manuscript to determine, whether it meets the main requirements and criteria of the Nature Conservation Research journal.

- If a manuscript meets the main requirements and criteria of the Nature Conservation Research journal, Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor decide on the choice of reviewers for certain manuscript according to subject of the manuscript.

- Manuscript is sent to at least two invited experts and (if needed) to member of Editorial Board for reviewing of the manuscript (taking into account anonymity of author (s)).

- The result of the review process is the recommendations of the invited reviewer.

- Nominated reviewer should check the manuscript over one month (30 days) and then the specialist should provide 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 anonymity of reviewers). Additionally, the Editorial 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, during one month (30 days), 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 remarks of reviewers (one file for each of the reviewers).

- Revised manuscript will be sent for re-evaluation. The time for this purpose is about 2-3 weeks. If there are some objective reasons, a reviewer may request an extension of the deadline.

- 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. However, Editorial staff does not support a conversation between the authors and reviewers after making a final decision on the submission.


Kind regards,

Editorial Board of the journal

«Nature Conservation Research»