The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in first instance be handled by the Editor-in-Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper.
Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether
- The decision to reject should stand;
- Another independent opinion is required
- The appeal should be considered.
The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.
Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review
The Editor-in-Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or in-house contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.
Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to COPE.
These guidelines describe authorship principles and good authorship practices to which all authors should conform.
Our journal assumes that all authors agreed with the content of manuscript and that all gave explicit consent to submit and that they obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out, before the work is submitted.
The journal does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that warrant authorship. It is recommended that authors adhere to the guidelines for authorship that are applicable in ecology field. In absence of specific guidelines it is recommended to adhere to the following guidelines a,b:
All authors whose names appear on the submission
Our journal encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted, and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.
All authors are requested to include information regarding sources of funding, financial or non-financial interests, study-specific approval by the appropriate ethics committee for research involving humans and/or animals, informed consent if the research involved human participants, and a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals (as appropriate). The decision whether such information should be included is not only dependent on the scope of the journal, but also the scope of the article.
All authors are requested to make sure that all data and materials as well as software application or custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards. Submission of a manuscript to our journal implies that materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes, without breaching participant confidentiality.
We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible.
One author is normally assigned as Corresponding Author and acts on behalf of all co-authors and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed.
The Corresponding Author is responsible for the following requirements:
Please check the Instructions for Authors of our journal that you are submitting to for specific instructions regarding Author’s contributions statements.
Examples of such statement(s) are as follows:
SS conceived the ideas, conducted the data collection and analysis, and wrote the manuscript. KSJ conceived the ideas, conducted field study, checked the database, and reviewed the manuscript. HGK conceived the ideas and reviewed the manuscript. JHD and DK conducted the data analysis. JEH reviewed the manuscript. JHK examined the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may additionally be stated. Addresses will not be updated or changed after publication of the article.
Authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors at submission. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript.
Please note that author names will be published exactly as they appear on the accepted submission.
Please make sure that the names of all authors are present and correctly spelled, and that addresses and affiliations are current.
Adding and/or deleting authors at revision stage are generally not permitted, but in some cases it may be warranted. Reasons for these changes in authorship should be explained. Approval of the change during revision is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
Authors are strongly recommended to use their ORCID ID when submitting their manuscript for consideration or acquire an ORCID ID via the submission process.
Authors should treat all communication with the Journal as confidential which includes correspondence with direct representatives from the Journal such as Editors-in-Chief and/or Handling Editors and reviewers’ reports unless explicit consent has been received to share information.
Authorship issues or disputes
In the case of an authorship dispute during peer review or after acceptance and publication, the Journal will not be in a position to investigate or adjudicate. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute themselves. If they are unable to resolve the authorship issues, the Journal reserves the right to withdraw a manuscript from the editorial process or in case of a published paper raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.
Research articles and non-research articles (e.g. Editorial) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive self-citation, coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite, gratuitous and unnecessary citation of articles published in the journal to which the paper has been submitted, and any other form of citation manipulation are inappropriate.
Citation manipulation will result in the article being rejected, and may be reported to authors’ institutions. Similarly, any attempts by peer-reviewers or editors to encourage such practices should be reported by authors to the Editor-in-Chief.
Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:
Authors are requested to disclose interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Interests within the last 3 years of beginning the work (conducting the research and preparing the work for submission) should be reported. Interests outside the 3-year time frame must be disclosed if they could reasonably be perceived as influencing the submitted work. Disclosure of interests provides a complete and transparent process and helps readers form their own judgments of potential bias. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate.
Interests that should be considered and disclosed but are not limited to the following:
It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant, any such figure is necessarily arbitrary, so one possible practical guideline is the following: "Any undeclared financial interest that could embarrass the author were it to become publicly known after the work was published."
Non-financial interests: In addition, authors are requested to disclose interests that go beyond financial interests that could impart bias on the work submitted for publication such as professional interests, personal relationships or personal beliefs (amongst others). Examples include, but are not limited to: position on editorial board, advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships; writing and/or consulting for educational purposes; expert witness; mentoring relations; and so forth.
Research (including note) and review articles require a disclosure statement. Other article types such as editorials may, dependent on their content, require a disclosure statement. If you are unclear whether your article type requires a disclosure statement, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.
Please note that, in addition to the above requirements, funding information (given that funding is a potential conflict of interest (as mentioned above)) needs to be disclosed upon submission of the manuscript in the peer review system.
Authors are responsible for correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript. See also Authorship Principles. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the guidelines described in this section.
Editorial Board Members and Editors are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
In addition, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include – but is not limited to – having previously published with one or more of the authors, and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.
Where an Editor or Editorial Board Member is on the author list they must declare this in the competing interests section on the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another Editor or member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. These submissions are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript.
Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration.
Authors requiring a variation of this type should inform the Journal during or immediately after submission of their article. Changes to the copyright line cannot be made after publication of an article.
If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud, the journals will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after an investigation, there are valid concerns, the authors concerned will be contacted under their given email address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the journal’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, editor’s note, editorial expression of concern, or retraction notice. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform watermarked “retracted” and the explanation is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.
In exceptional circumstances, our journal reserves the right to remove an article or other content from journal’s online platforms. Such action may be taken when (i) the Journal has been advised that content is defamatory, infringes a third party’s intellectual property right, right to privacy, or other legal right, or is otherwise unlawful; (ii) a court or government order has been issued, or is likely to be issued, requiring removal of such content; (iii) content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health. Removal may be temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (e.g. title and authors) will be retained, and will be accompanied by a statement explaining why the content has been removed.
The journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour.
Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include:
All of the above are guidelines and authors need to make sure to respect third parties’ rights such as copyright and/or moral rights.
If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud, the Journal will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the Journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.Suggesting / excluding reviewers
Authors are welcome to suggest suitable reviewers and/or request the exclusion of certain individuals when they submit their manuscripts. When suggesting reviewers, authors should make sure they are totally independent and not connected to the work in any way. It is strongly recommended to suggest a mix of reviewers from different countries and different institutions. Please note that the Journal may not use the suggestions, but suggestions are appreciated and may help facilitate the peer review process.
All research articles, and most other article types, published in our journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers in the first round of peer review process.Peer review policy
All submissions to the Journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where the Editor-in-Chief is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. The Handling Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themselves may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.Peer reviewer selection
Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.Editor Responsibilities
In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.
Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.
Our journal allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, and to request that some be excluded from consideration. Editors will consider these requests, but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor’s decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.
Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.
Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in line the Journal’s misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers. Our journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).Peer review type
Our journal uses a single-blind peer review process; that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors.Peer review guidance
It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.
Our journal is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
The welfare of animals (vertebrate and higher invertebrate) used for research, education and testing must be respected. Authors should supply detailed information on the ethical treatment of their animals in their submission. For that purpose, they may use the ARRIVE (https://arriveguidelines.org) checklist which is designed to be used when submitting manuscripts describing animal research. We recommend that authors consult the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020), as a comprehensive resource for guidance on veterinary best practice for the anesthesia and euthanasia of animals.
For studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.
Authors are recommended to comply with The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and consult the IUCN red list index (https://www.iucnredlist.org/search) of threatened species listed on Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php)
Researchers from countries without any legal requirements or guidelines voluntarily should refer to the following sites for guidance:
The Association for the study of Animal Behaviour describes ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals in research and teaching (https://www.asab.org/ethics/)
Experimental research and field studies on plants (either cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.
Manuscripts should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licences for collection of plant or seed specimens. We recommend that authors comply with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction (https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PP-003-En.pdf) and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php).
To support reproducibility, voucher specimens for all wild plants described in a manuscript must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection that provides access to deposited material. Information on the voucher specimen and who identified it must be included in the manuscript.
Details of palaeontological specimens and geological samples should include clear provenance information to ensure full transparency of the research.
It is recognized that precise provenance information may not be available for older museum collections. In circumstances where providing specific provenance information may compromise the security of palaeontological or geological sites it may be appropriate to exclude detailed locality information.
Samples must always be collected and exported in a responsible manner and in accordance with applicable local and national laws. Any submission detailing new material should include information regarding the requisite permissions obtained and the issuing authority. Authors may be required to provide specific supporting documentation upon request.
Type, figured and cited palaeontological specimens, should be deposited in a recognised museum or collection to permit free access by other researchers in perpetuity. Sufficient information on the repository, including the assigned unique catalogue numbers (where applicable), should be provided to allow the specimens to be traced.
We encourage deposition of 3-D scans of fossil specimens (where appropriate) within a permanent, accessible repository to facilitate study by the scientific community.
Our journal requires that submitted content adheres to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) normative instruments for the protection of cultural heritage
(http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13649&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=-471.html), and IUCN Resolutions,
Recommendations and other Decisions
Jyoti Khatri-Chettri1 , Maan Bahadur Rokaya2,3 and Bharat Babu Shrestha1*
Daniel Bisrat1,2* and Chuleui Jung1,3
Bajaree Chuttong1* , Lakkhika Panyaraksa1, Chantaluk Tiyayon2, Wilawan Kumpoun3, Parinya Chantrasri3, Phurichaya Lertlakkanawat1, Chuleui Jung4 and Michael Burgett1,5
Jyoti Khatri-Chettri1 , Maan Bahadur Rokaya2,3 and Bharat Babu Shrestha1*