eISSN : 2288-1220
pISSN : 2287-8327
Journal Information  l  e-Submission  l  View-FullText
Journal Information > Editor's & Reviewer's Guide
The Journal of Ecology and Field Biology’s editorial policy includes considering the expectations and aspirations of the contributors as well as the needs of the journal. Therefore, the editors should provide all authors with constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement to the extent possible, even if the manuscript is refused. All contributions should be considered objectively and without bias, regardless of the identity, seniority, or affiliation of the author(s).

New manuscripts
After a manuscript is submitted to e-submission system, it will be assigned a reference number such as JEFB-2011-0001. The Associate Editor in Chief should solicit reviews from three outside referees competent to evaluate the quality of the manuscript. Obvious conflicts of interest should be avoided where possible in the selection of potential referees (e.g., an advisor should not be invited to review the work of a current or former student, or vice versa; members of the same academic department should not be invited to review each other’s work). (Note: where it is not possible to secure reviews from three external referees in a timely manner, the Associate Editor in Chief may serve as the third reviewer, or may proceed with only two reviews.) Reviewers will remain anonymous unless they specifically request disclosure of their identity in writing. Each reviewer should be asked to provide comments and suggestions for improvement, as well as an overall evaluation of the manuscript (in the form of a completed Review Form). Upon receipt of the completed reviews, the Associate Editor in Chief will make a decision about the status of the manuscript (see below). General guidelines for the decision process are provided in the Decision Criteria.
Associate Editors-in-Chief have to report all review processes, includeing reference numbering, manuscript received date, reviewers’ name, sent date of review requesting letter, received date of review result, and reviewers recommendation, etc, through e-submission system in the end of the year to the Editorial office.
There are four possible outcomes for a submitted manuscript
1. Accepted
[->Technical Editor (-> Author) ->Printer]
2. Accepted with minor revisions
[->Associate Editor in Chief -> Author -> Associate Editor in Chief -> Technical Editor -> Printer]
3. Major revisions
[->Associate Editor in Chief -> Author]
4. Refused
[-> Author]
Action to be taken
1. Accepted; where the manuscript is publishable in its current form following technical and copy editing.
Letter informing the author that the manuscript has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will not be returned to the author unless the Associate Editor in Chief finds it necessary to request additional adjustments after technical editing.
2. Accepted with minor revisions: where the manuscript is accepted on the condition that the author makes minor corrections in response to referee and Associate Editor in Chief’s suggestions.
Letter informing the author that minor revisions will be required and briefly outlining the revisions necessary. The author should be asked to include a cover letter with their revisions summarizing their responses to the referee comments.
3. Accepted with major revisions: where a manuscript has potential to be publishable, but the manuscript requires major revision before it will be acceptable for publication.
Letter informing the author why the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form, offering suggestions for improvement, and inviting the author to resubmit a revised version. If the manuscript is resubmitted, it will be returned to the Associate Editor in Chief for an additional review process employing the same referees when possible. If further minor revision is needed, it should be sent back to the author by the Associate Editor in Chief. Finally, if the resubmitted manuscript remains unacceptable, then it should be returned to the author following the procedure for a rejected manuscript. We try to avoid handling a manuscript for a second time.
4. Rejected.
Letter informing the author that the manuscript cannot be accepted and briefly explaining the reasons for the decision.
Revised manuscripts
Associate Editors in Chief should read the revised version and cross-check it against the original version and reviewers’ comments (using the author’s response to the reviewer suggestions as a guide) to determine whether the necessary corrections have been made. If the manuscript has been satisfactorily revised and there are no further queries, it should be forwarded to the Editorial Office as soon as possible in order to avoid delay in printing. Manuscripts accepted after revision will be sent to the Technical Editor via the Editorial Office. If additional revision is required following technical editing, the manuscript may be returned to the author again for further revision.
Technical Editing for English and Manuscript Format
Technical editing is a service that the Editorial Office offers to facilitate the publication of research by non-native English speakers in the Journal of Ecology and Field Biology. Manuscripts by non-native English speakers will be forwarded to the Technical Editor for editing of English usage (including the use of scientific writing conventions and appropriate presentation of methods and results) prior to publication. Note that in some cases, the Technical Editor may need to return the manuscript to the author to seek clarification (in cases where the writing is ambiguous or the author provides incomplete information about e.g., methods). As this additional step may cause delays in publication, please seek to ensure that the each sentence is comprehensible, and that complete information is included in the manuscript prior to acceptance.
Some points concerning editing of manuscripts
Abstract: should sum up the main points of the article and be self-contained for information retrieval purposes. There should be no unexplained abbreviations and preferably no references. If a reference is given it must be cited in full, including author(s), date, title, and journal details.
Methods: the number of independent experiments and replicates within an experiment should be given, as well as the statistical treatment employed. Methods should be accurately and precisely described, and should provide a level of detail that would allow the research to be replicated. Tables and figures should be comprehensible as far as possible without reference to the main text, i.e., the legend should be brief but descriptive. The slash, or solidus (/) should be used when there is only one unit in the denominator (e.g. 5.5 m/s). Negative exponents are used to indicate two or more units in the denominator (e.g., μmol m-2 s-1 not μmol/ m2/ s-1). Check whether results are presented twice, e.g. both in the form of a figure and a table; suggest appropriate deletions.
References: All references mentioned in the text should be checked against the reference list (Literature cited) for spelling, correct year and whether they are listed at all. Authors cited in the Literature cited must be listed alphabetically. However, when more than one paper has the same first author, the references are arranged as follows:
Single author - chronologically
Two authors - alphabetically according to the second author
Three or more authors - chronologically
In the text, references should be cited chronologically by year, and alphabetically within a year (e.g., Brown 1997, Abbott 2001, Byrd and Won 2001).
Note to Associate Editors-in-Chief
Before returning a manuscript to the Editorial Office, please ensure that a clear decision has been given, and indicate the date of the final decision.
All letters to the author must be written in English, and a copy of all correspondence should be sent to the Editorial Office as an email attachment. If electronic submission is not possible, then please send three hard copies by post. Copies of the letter will be forwarded to the referees for their reference.
Note: It is a good idea to keep a personal record (number, author, date) of the manuscripts edited as well as copies of all correspondence.
Please familiarize yourself with the Guide to authors (found on the inside cover of each issue of the journal), as many points concerning manuscript presentation have not been repeated here.
Time-frame for Editorial Process
It is our ambition to limit handling time for a manuscript to a maximum of 11 weeks from receipt to decision. We generally allocate 3 weeks to refereeing, 10 days to english editing, 10 days to manuscript editing, and about one week to office operations and transmission, which leaves 5 weeks for editing. Please notify the Editorial office immediately if you will not be able to edit a manuscript within a three-week period. Please also inform us by email or fax of periods of time when you will be unavailable (e.g., vacations, leave, absences due to field work).