Reviewer Management

Overview

At ABNJ, effective reviewer management is central to maintaining the journal’s commitment to scientific rigor, ethical integrity, and transparent publishing. Our double-blind peer review system ensures all submissions are evaluated fairly, constructively, and in a timely manner by qualified experts across the biological and environmental sciences.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise
Reviewers are selected based on their academic credentials and domain expertise in areas such as:

  • Biodiversity & Conservation

  • Environmental Science

  • Biotechnology

  • Microbiology

  • Ecology

  • Zoology/Botany

  • Molecular Biology

Criteria for selection include:

  • Research publications in peer-reviewed journals

  • Experience with relevant methodologies and experimental design

  • Active engagement in biological sciences education or research

Diversity and Representation
ABNJ promotes diversity in its reviewer pool by including scholars from varied institutions, regions, genders, and career stages to support inclusive, well-rounded scientific perspectives.

Invitation to Review
Reviewers receive a formal invitation containing:

  • The manuscript title and abstract

  • Review deadline (typically 2–4 weeks)

  • Disclosure form for potential conflicts of interest

Reviewers may accept or decline based on expertise or availability.

Reviewer Database
The reviewer pool is continually updated using:

  • Editorial board recommendations

  • Recent author and peer suggestions

  • Participation in scientific forums and conferences

  • Literature and citation trend analysis

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Review
ABNJ maintains a double-blind process to protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers, ensuring objectivity and reducing bias.

Balanced Workload
Editor assignments are monitored to prevent reviewer fatigue and ensure timely, high-quality feedback. Efforts are made to distribute manuscripts equitably across the reviewer pool.

Mentorship and Inclusivity
ABNJ supports both seasoned and early-career reviewers. New reviewers may receive editorial mentorship and reviewer guidelines to foster growth in peer review practice.

3. Reviewer Expectations and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts based on:

  • Scientific originality and significance

  • Appropriateness of methods and data analysis

  • Validity of results and interpretation

  • Compliance with ethical standards

  • Logical organization, clarity, and citation quality

Timeliness
Reviews are generally expected within 2–4 weeks. Extensions may be granted on request. Delays may result in reassignment.

Confidentiality
All manuscript content and reviewer activity must remain confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript content with others

  • Use unpublished data for personal purposes

  • Reveal their identity or involvement without consent

Ethical Responsibility
Reviewers are required to notify the editorial office if they detect:

  • Plagiarism or data manipulation

  • Ethical lapses in study design or reporting

  • Any conflict of interest or inability to provide an objective review

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Support
The ABNJ editorial team is available to assist reviewers with:

  • Clarifications on review expectations

  • Technical issues in the submission platform

  • Questions or concerns regarding manuscript quality

Recognition
To acknowledge reviewer contributions, ABNJ:

  • Publishes annual reviewer recognition lists

  • Issues certificates of appreciation on request

  • May extend editorial board invitations to top-performing reviewers

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring
Reviews are evaluated for:

  • Relevance and depth of analysis

  • Constructiveness and professionalism

  • Timeliness and adherence to guidelines

Low-quality or inappropriate reviews may result in removal from the reviewer list or editorial feedback.

Conflicting Reviews
If reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may:

  • Seek input from a third reviewer

  • Make a decision in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief

Periodic Review
Reviewer performance is reviewed periodically to improve quality and ensure continuous improvement in the peer review process.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Training and Guidance
ABNJ provides ongoing development opportunities, including:

  • Reviewer guides and evaluation rubrics

  • Webinars and workshops on review ethics

  • Mentorship programs for junior reviewers

Incentives and Acknowledgment
ABNJ is exploring further reviewer benefits, such as:

  • Priority handling of reviewer-authored manuscripts

  • Discounts on publication fees

  • Access to exclusive editorial content and resources

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose conflicts such as:

  • Recent collaboration with the author(s)

  • Financial or institutional affiliations

  • Personal or academic rivalries

In such cases, an alternate reviewer will be assigned.

Handling Reviewer Misconduct
Misconduct includes:

  • Violating confidentiality

  • Using manuscript content without permission

  • Providing biased or unprofessional feedback

Consequences may include:

  • Removal from the reviewer panel

  • Notification to affiliated institutions

  • Reporting to ethics bodies such as COPE, if necessary

Conclusion

The ABNJ Reviewer Management Policy is built on the principles of professionalism, fairness, and scientific integrity. By supporting a global network of skilled, diverse reviewers, ABNJ ensures each manuscript undergoes objective, high-quality evaluation—reinforcing the journal's mission to publish ethical, innovative, and impactful biological research.