Reviewer Resources

Summary

->Your review should be detailed and constructive, enabling the authors to revise their manuscript for ->potential acceptance.

->If recommending rejection, provide clear reasons why the submission does not meet the journal's publication standards.

->To maintain anonymity, refrain from including your name in the report.

  • Reviewer benefits
    • Reviewers will receive a Review Certificate via email upon successful submission of their reviews (a PDF version of the certificate is also available upon request).
    • Review submissions can be credited to your Reviewer Profile through Reviewer Credit.
    • Discount on the Article Processing Charge (APC)—If a reviewer submits a manuscript for publication in the JZS journal, a 10% discount per MS reviewed, which can be cumulative up to 5 manuscript reviews, will be offered to get a 50% waiver on the APC.
  • Reviewer T&C
    • To qualify for the reviewer waiver benefit, you must submit the reviewed manuscript along with critical comments.
    • You may decline a review invitation if the manuscript topic does not align with your area of expertise or if there is a conflict of interest.
    • Do not attempt to review a manuscript if you are from the same lab or institution where the manuscript was submitted.
    • The minimum qualification to serve as a reviewer for the Journal of Zoology and Systematics (JZS) is a Ph.D. in the relevant field.
  • Guideline for submitting review comments
    • Method 1

      Below are sample comments/suggestions to be submitted as "for author and editor" in the review submission form.

      The current study provides valuable insights related to <abc>. However, several revisions are necessary:

      • In the introduction section, please include references related to the studied genes. Additionally, explain why it is important to analyze the expression levels of these proteins.
      • The aims of the study should be clearly stated in the final paragraph of the introduction.
      • Line 26: Could you clarify the composition of the medium? Also, explain the abbreviation and function of BAP.
      • Page 7, line 5: What is the pH of the soil mixture?
      • Page 7, line 27: Please use "P. indica" instead of "Pi" consistently throughout the manuscript.
      • Page 7, line 29: Could you specify the boiling temperature and duration?
      • Page 7, line 38: Please provide the specifications, series, and magnification of the microscope used.
      • Page 7, line 46: Indicate the number of leaves sampled, e.g., the 5th leaf or similar.
      • Page 8, line 1: Can you specify how much leaf material (in mg) was used for RNA extraction?
      • Page 8, line 12: Please clarify the process for synthesizing cDNA from RNA.
      • Page 8, line 22: Mention the four genes analyzed in the study.
      • Page 8, line 41: Provide the specifications of the RT-PCR equipment used.
      • Page 8, lines 53–58: Was any data handling performed prior to the analysis, such as a normality test?
      • Page 8, lines 8–12: The presence of chlamydospores is not visible in Figure 1. Could you clarify this with a pointed black arrow and add a scale bar with magnification details in the figure caption?
      • Page 9, line 8: Please provide a brief description of the hyphal colonization pattern.
      • Page 10, line 31: Use "P. indica" instead of "Pi" throughout the manuscript.
      • Page 10, line 44: Briefly describe why measuring chlorophyll a, b, and c is necessary and how the results compare with those obtained in this study.
      • Page 13, line 1: Use "symbiotic association" instead of "connection."
      • Figure 2: Please add labels to the figure according to the caption, such as C for Control, T for Treated, a for Day 45, and b for Day 90. Labels are missing in the figure.
      • Figures 3–6: Add error bars and include the statistical analysis results to show significance.
    • Method 2:
      You can also mark the comments directly in the reviewed manuscript. However, in this case, the reviewer must provide critical observations that are readable to both the "author and editor" and "editor only," as appropriate.
    • Reviewed manuscript

      • Uploading the reviewed manuscript is optional if you follow Method 1, but it is compulsory for Method 2.

      • The feedback you provide in your review report will be shared with the manuscript author(s). Please ensure that your comments are constructive and professional. To maintain anonymity, do not include your name in the report.

      • We reserve the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.

    • Reviewer guidelines

      • Purpose of the Review
        The primary objective of the review is to provide the editors with critical information that will guide their decision-making regarding the submitted manuscript. The secondary purpose is to offer constructive feedback to the authors on how they can enhance their manuscript to meet the necessary standards for publication. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript’s technical rigor and scientific validity. This includes assessing whether the methods used are appropriate, well-executed, and whether the conclusions are fully substantiated by the data. As an expert in the field, you are expected to provide in-depth comments and insights. If you identify significant flaws in the study or data, it is essential to recommend rejection.

        Review Process
        You may submit your review comments in a separate document (i.e., not in the original manuscript file), or submit them through the journal’s online platform. You may also mark the required corrections directly on the manuscript to guide the authors. However, this alone does not constitute a complete review. By agreeing to review, you are putting your professional reputation on the line. Our aim is not simply to correct or reject manuscripts but to ensure that the research is scientifically sound, clearly written, and valuable to the scientific community. A review that merely suggests changes with tracked edits does not fulfill the purpose of a comprehensive review.

        Confidentiality
        Both editors and reviewers must treat the review process with the utmost confidentiality. Manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone outside the review process unless they are directly involved in reviewing the manuscript. Consulting with colleagues within your laboratory is acceptable, but these individuals must be disclosed to the handling editor. Consulting external experts is allowed, but prior approval from the editors is required.

        Timing
        We aim to provide quick editorial decisions to authors and uphold an efficient editorial process that benefits both the authors and the scientific community. We kindly ask reviewers to submit their review reports ideally within 10 days of receiving the manuscript. If more time is needed, please notify the editors in advance so we can inform the authors and, if necessary, seek alternative reviewers.

        Anonymity
        As part of our double-blind review process, the identities of both reviewers and authors will remain confidential throughout the review process and beyond. Reviewers should not reveal their identities to the authors or other reviewers unless explicitly requested to do so. If you wish to disclose your identity, this should be done through the journal’s office to ensure proper confidentiality is maintained.