Decision-Making Process

JM utilizes a systematic evaluation framework to ensure that research on wildlife, ecology, and conservation is scientifically robust and ethically sound.

1. Initial Submission Screening

  • Screening: Verification of scientific scope, data declarations, and the 15% plagiarism limit.

  • Ethical Check: Ensuring all wildlife research includes documented permits and ethical treatment clearances.

2. Peer Review Process

  • Assignment: Double-blind evaluation by two or more specialists in zoology or conservation biology.

  • Criteria: Field methodology, data integrity, and relevance to species or habitat protection.

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

  • Consolidation: The handling editor synthesizes scientific feedback to provide a clear decision for the authors.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

  • Major Revisions: Authors may be granted 4–6 weeks for substantial data re-analysis or technical updates.

5. Communication and Appeals

  • Appeals: Scientific appeals are evaluated by the Editorial Board to ensure a fair and expert-led review.