| Post date: 2019/01/20 |
Iranian Journal of Fish Ecology (IJFE) appreciates the reviewers to spend their valuable time to review the articles submitted for their consideration. IJFE acknowledge your acceptance and responsibility of reviewing a manuscript.
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IJFE’s Editorial Board appreciates the reviewers to spend their valuable time to review the articles submitted for their consideration. IJFE acknowledges your acceptance and responsibility of reviewing a manuscript.
IJF's reviewers has a fundamental role in the success of the journal. Maintaining IJFE as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.
IJFE adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. All manuscripts submitted to IJFE undergo primary evaluation by the editors and then send for peer review by at least two reviewers. In so doing, IJFE needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 2 weeks.
We highly appreciate the invaluable contribution of our reviewers for critical review of the manuscripts and we welcome potential reviewers from all over the world.
Reviewing Guidelines
Reviewing a manuscript written by a fellow scientist is a privilege. However, it is a time-consuming responsibility. Hence, IJFE’s Editorial Board appreciates the reviewers to spend their valuable time to review the articles submitted for their consideration. IJFE acknowledges your acceptance and responsibility of reviewing a manuscript.
IJF's reviewers has a fundamental role in the success of the journal. Maintaining IJFE as a scientific journal of high quality depends on reviewers with a high level of expertise and an ability to be objective, fair, and insightful in their evaluation of manuscripts.
IJFE adheres to a double-blind peer-review process that is rapid, fair, and ensures a high quality of articles published. All manuscripts submitted to IJFE undergo primary evaluation by the editors and then send for peer review by at least two reviewers. In so doing, IJFE needs reviewers who can provide insightful and helpful comments on submitted manuscripts with a turn around time of about 2 weeks.
We highly appreciate the invaluable contribution of our reviewers for critical review of the manuscripts and we welcome potential reviewers from all over the world.
Reviewing Guidelines
- All reviewers should be registered in the journal's web site (in some cases, managing editor may register reviewers (by his/her email) to send them manuscripts for review)
- Iranian Journal of Fish Ecology applies doable -blind peer review.
- Reviewers should not disclose their identity to the authors, at any stage of the publication of the manuscript.
- Reviewers of the journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research.
- Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor so that alternative reviewer can be contacted.
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
- Reviewers should provide constructive comments to improve the quality of the article.
- Reviewers may identify relevant published works that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship nor political values of the authors.
- Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewers. They can approach the assigned editor/editorial office, if the manuscript is beyond their expertise.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewer reviews his/her assigned article and judges it according to four categories: acceptable as is, needs with minor revisions, needs with major revisions, and reject.
- Please note that final decision to accept or reject of an article depend on the comments from the Editor-in-Chief.
Writing the review
- The IJFE will be please if the reviewer provides a statement to identify the major contributions of the article. What are its major strengths, weaknesses and its suitability for publication?
- Support your general comments, positive or negative, with specific evidence. If you like to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review section. However, we prefer to have these marked-up files in PDF format rather than Word to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author.
Reviewer’s remarks to the authors
- Please provide comments and suggestions which are useful for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the article. If you are submitting a reviewer’s report to reject the article, you are asked to provide the reasons for rejection. Those comments are sent to the authors.
Reviewer’s confidential remarks to the editor
- Those comments are sent for the editor responsible to the review of the article, not to the authors. So any potential scientific misconducts, conflict of interest, etc can be mentioned here.
Revised papers
- When authors make revisions to their article in response to reviewer comments, they are asked to submit a list of changes and any comments for transmission to the reviewers. The revised version is usually returned to the original reviewer if possible, who is then asked to affirm whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily.
View: 2313 Time(s) |
Print: 471 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
