Editorial Toolkit
Decision Templates
Standard decision formats that support clarity and consistency.
Reviewer Database
Access to reviewers with mammal science expertise.
Ethics Guidance
Policies for consent, data access, and conflict management.
Reporting Standards
Checklists for methodological transparency and reproducibility.
These tools help editors maintain consistency and provide authors with clear, actionable feedback.
Editorial Process Support
- Initial screening checklists for scope and ethics.
- Reviewer invitation templates and reminder tools.
- Guidance for handling conflicting reviewer reports.
- Structured decision letters for revision guidance.
Editorial Office Assistance
Editors can consult the editorial office for help with complex reviews, ethical questions, or reviewer conflicts. Support is available throughout the review cycle.
Best Practices
- Apply consistent decision criteria across submissions.
- Prioritize transparency in decision letters.
- Monitor reviewer timelines and follow up promptly.
- Escalate ethical concerns when needed.
Improving Review Quality
Editors can encourage reviewers to focus on methodological rigor, reporting clarity, and relevance to mammal science. Constructive reviews improve the author experience and reduce revision cycles.
Transparency Requirements
Editors should confirm the presence of data availability statements, ethics approvals, and conflict disclosures. For computational studies, request code availability or clear explanations of access limitations.
Decision Quality
Use consistent decision criteria to avoid variability across manuscripts. When reviews conflict, consider inviting an additional reviewer to ensure balanced evaluation.
Author Correspondence
Decision letters should summarize the main issues and provide a clear path for revision. Consistent communication improves author experience and reduces delays.
Handling Ethical Concerns
If issues arise related to consent, data privacy, or potential misconduct, editors should notify the editorial office and follow JMR guidance for investigation and documentation.
Time Management
Set reminders for reviewer deadlines and use templates to streamline decisions. Efficient workflows help maintain a timely review process for JMR authors.
Responding To Disputes
Appeals should be handled transparently and based on scientific reasoning. Editors should document key decisions and consult senior editors when needed.
Ongoing Training
JMR shares updates on policy changes and emerging ethics guidelines to keep editors aligned with current best practices.
Editors may receive periodic guidance on new reporting standards and data sharing expectations.
Need Editorial Support?
Email the editorial office for guidance or policy clarification.
