Peer Review Process
The acceptance of a manuscript implies that it has been reviewed and recommended by at least two reviewers, one of whom is usually on the Editorial Advisory Board. Authors will generally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 2 to 3 months of receipt. Manuscript is rejected, if the content is not in line with the journal scope, does not meet the ethical standards (i.e. false authorship, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication of data and citation manipulation), does not meet the required quality, written in inappropriate format, has incorrect grammar, or ignores correspondence in three months. Manuscripts can also be rejected if there are two reviewers who gave a negative note. The primary criteria for publication are scientific quality and biological or natural conservation significance. The accepted papers will be published in a chronological order.
The review process conducted a double blind, where the identity of authors and reviewers are concealed. Information on their identity can only be granted with the consent of both sides. Authors are asked to propose a list of 5-10 names of prospective reviewers. Management may choose to invite them or not. Authors can also propose that someone does not review. Reviewers must have the Scopus-ID or Researcher-ID (Thomson Reuters) or recorded as a corresponding author in this journal. Reviewers may also be invited from journals published by major publishers such as Elsevier or Springer. They must come from different institutions with authors; preferably originating from three different countries. Basically, one can only review once a year. List of the reviewer updated on every middle and end of the year. Therefore, the reviewers in the past year could not be invited; while the Editorial Advisory Board can only be invited by management.