All papers published in this journal are subjected to a peer-review.
Peer-review process
The Editor-in-chief initially assesses
the appropriateness of each submitted manuscript for publication. Manuscripts
which fall outside the journal’s scope or are substandard in respects of
non-merit reasons (presentation, style, technical aspects) may be declined
without a review. The Editor-in-chief appoints an Editor with expertise in the
relevant field, who is fully responsible for further handling the manuscript
and an ultimate decision about its acceptance/rejection.
The Editor initially evaluates the
quality and potential impact of the work. The primary criteria for judging the
acceptability of a manuscript are its originality, scientific importance
and interest to a general zoological audience. This policy permits
declination of a manuscript solely on the Editor’s judgment that the studies
reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in the Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle "Grigore Antipa". Manuscripts deemed unsuitable (work incomplete,
inconclusive, merely confirmatory, of insufficient originality or limited
interest to a general zoological audience, with scientific or methodological
flaws) are returned to the author(s) without a detailed review. Manuscripts
that meet editorial criteria for content and minimum quality standard are
rigorously vetted by external expert reviewers recruited by the Editor.
Research articles and short communications
are reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers, review papers by at least three. Authors
are encouraged to suggest names of potential referees though there is no agreement
that the manuscript should necessarily be sent to them; the final selection of
reviewers remains a prerogative of the Editors. Editors and reviewers are
requested to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence. The authors’
names are revealed to the referees, but not vice versa.
The reviewers make an objective and impartial evaluation of scientific
merits of the manuscript. Reviewers operate under guidelines set forth
in Guidelines for reviewers (click here to download) and are asked to
comment on some aspects which are mentioned in the Manuscript Evaluation
Form (click here to download). Also, the reviewers are asked to take into account the following aspects when they evaluate a submitted manuscript: • novelty and originality of the work; • broad interest to the community of researchers; • significance to the field, potential impact of the work, conceptual or
methodological advances described; • study design and clarity; • substantial evidence supporting claims and conclusions; • rigorous methodology.
If a manuscript is
believed to not meet the standards of the journal or is otherwise lacking in
scientific rigor or contains major deficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to
provide constructive criticism to assist the authors in ultimately improving
their work. If a manuscript is believed to be potentially acceptable for publication but needs to be improved, the authors are invited to reconsider it, taking into consideration all reviewer’s suggestions.
When the reviewers make the revision of a manuscript, all of them
are asked to fill the Manuscript Evaluation Form, as well as to make some observations
and recommendations (where it is necessary) to the authors directly on the
manuscript. Then the filled Manuscript Evaluation Form and the manuscript (with
observations and recommendations) have to be sent back to the Editor who
required the revision, by e-mail.
The reviewers are asked to complete the review in one month.
Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Editor, a
decision letter to the author is drafted. There are several types of
decisions possible:
• Acceptable as it is
• Requires minor revision
• Requires major revision
• Rejected
• Other recommendations
