Core Editorial Duties

• Assess scope fit, ethics compliance, and methodological quality.
• Invite qualified reviewers without conflicts of interest.
• Provide clear decision letters and revision guidance.
• Monitor reviewer timelines and follow up on delays.
• Escalate ethical concerns to the editorial office.

Editors should balance speed with rigor, ensuring each manuscript receives fair and evidence based evaluation.

Decision Standards

Decisions should be based on scientific validity, originality, and relevance to mammal research. Editors should apply consistent standards and avoid bias.

Common outcomes include accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Decision letters should highlight the most important changes needed for improvement.

Supporting Reviewers

Encourage reviewers to focus on methods, reporting transparency, and interpretability. Constructive comments help authors improve their work and reduce revision cycles.

Editors may invite early career reviewers when appropriate, with oversight to ensure review quality and fairness.

Editorial Process

• Initial screening for scope, ethics, and completeness.
• Select two or more reviewers with appropriate expertise.
• Assess reviewer comments for tone and completeness.
• Provide clear guidance for revision priorities.

Choosing Reviewers

Select reviewers with expertise that matches the manuscript topic and methods. Avoid reviewers with potential conflicts, and balance perspectives when a topic is contentious or rapidly evolving.

Reporting And Transparency

Editors should verify the presence of data availability statements, ethics approvals, and conflict disclosures. For computational work, confirm that code or model details are available or that access limitations are explained.

If reporting is incomplete, return the manuscript for corrections before review to protect reviewer time and maintain standards.

Confidentiality And Conflicts

Manuscripts and reviewer identities are confidential. Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary.

Timeliness And Communication

Editors are expected to acknowledge new assignments promptly and aim for timely decisions. Clear communication supports authors and maintains journal credibility.

If reviews are delayed, editors should follow up or invite additional reviewers to keep the process moving.

Handling Disputes

If authors appeal a decision, editors should review the rationale objectively and consult the editorial office when needed. Appeals should be addressed with transparency and professionalism.

Clear documentation of decisions helps resolve disputes fairly.