Pacific Conservation Biology Pacific Conservation Biology Society
A journal dedicated to conservation and wildlife management in the Pacific region.

Referee Guidelines


Privacy of unpublished results
An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Do not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and do not use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussion with colleagues.

Do not discuss the manuscript with its authors unless permission has been granted by the Editor. Although it may seem natural and reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with the author, especially if you are generally in favour of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited because the other referee(s) and the Editor may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having ´cleared things up´ with the referee who contacted him/her directly.

Return to Index

Timeframe
Reviews should be completed within 21 days (3 weeks). If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, please contact the Editorial Assistant immediately. In addition, if you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially through contact with the authors or a possible conflict of interest, please return it immediately with an explanation.

Return to Index

The review
The review should give your overall impression of the manuscript, listing the major shortcomings and the strengths. There is opportunity to make confidential comments to the editor, as well as open comments to the authors. Above all, be courteous and supportive in your comments to the authors, even if the paper has serious shortcomings that you believe preclude publication. Pacific Conservation Biology receives many papers from research students and early career researchers, many of whom have yet to develop the thick skins of more experienced researchers. If rejection is warranted they need to be told of the deficiencies in their work in a way that encourages them to improve their conservation work for their next paper, rather than give up science research.

For research papers, please consider the following aspects in particular:

  • The novelty of the work, and whether there is sufficient originality and substance to be worthy of publication
  • The articulation of the rationale or hypothesis
  • The appropriateness of the experimental design
  • The quality of the technical analysis
  • The interpretation of results
  • Awareness (cogent discussion) of the relevant research (local and international), with particular reference to the Pacific region
  • A clear articulation of the significance for conservation or management in the Pacific

For Forum Essay papers, please consider:

  • The novelty of the ideas and opinions, and whether there is sufficient originality and substance to be worthy of publication
  • Awareness (cogent discussion) of the relevant research (local and international), with particular reference to the Pacific region
  • A clear articulation of the significance for conservation or management in the Pacific

It would be helpful to the Editor to comment on unnecessary length and to point out figures and tables that have secondary importance and could be presented as Supplementary Material.

Return to Index

Grammatical editing
You are not requested to correct deficiencies of style or mistakes in grammar, but any help you can give in clarifying meaning will be appreciated (track changes can expedite the editing process; a MS Word file, in addition to the PDF, is available in ScholarOne by accessing the Manuscript Files tab). The copy-editing staff employed by Pacific Conservation Biology will edit each accepted manuscript. It is their function to polish and correct the grammar, syntax, and spelling and to enforce the editorial style of the journal. However, be on the lookout for errors that the copyeditors (who are not necessarily specialists in the field) might miss. Examples are misspellings of locations, use of outmoded terminology, misspelled or misidentified scientific names of organisms, inappropriate scientific jargon and incorrect nomenclature.

Return to Index

What happens next?
When you open ScholarOne Manuscripts to submit your report, you will be offered some questions with a check box. The answers to these are for the use of the Editor, and are not conveyed directly to the authors. The most important are the first and last: the quality of the manuscript and your recommendation.

Keep a copy of the review in your files. If you have recommended ´major revision´, the revised manuscript may be returned to you for further comment.

If the paper is accepted, you will be sent a PDF when it is published online.