Review process

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 to download) and are asked to comment on some aspects which are mentioned in the Manuscript Evaluation Form (click 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