Reviewer Guidelines - Methods in Ecology and Evolution

1.1 Guide to Peer Review

Early-Career researchers with little experience of reviewing may be interested to read the BES Guide to Peer Review in Ecology and Evolution. This booklet is intended as a guide for early career researchers, who have little or no experience of reviewing journal articles but are interested in learning more about what is involved. It provides a succinct overview of the many aspects of reviewing, from hands-on practical advice about the actual review process to explaining less tangible aspects, such as reviewer ethics.

1.2 How to Write a Good Review

For information on how to write a review which is helpful to Authors and Editors, please see our blog post What Makes a Good Peer Review. This post was written for Peer Review Week 2016 and includes guidance from Methods in Ecology and Evolution Associate Editors as well as a list of additional resources.

1.3 Collaborative Review

We strongly encourage senior reviewers to review in collaboration with more junior members of their lab. We believe that this is fantastic training for early career researchers. If, as the head of a lab, you are invited to review but are too busy to provide a review yourself, we also encourage you to suggest early career members of your lab to review in your place. In this case we advise you to look over the comments before they are submitted and approve them. The reviewer should note that this has been done in their confidential comments.

If you would like to share a review with an early career researcher in your lab, please bear in mind the following:

  • Contact the journal first – please don’t forget that the review process is confidential and it is very important that the journal is informed before a review is shared.
  • Give the names of all who read the manuscript and contributed to the review in the confidential comments to Editors section of the review. This is important for two reasons, first so that there is a proper record of anyone who has read a copy of the manuscript. Second, so that anyone who contributed may be approached directly to review in the future.
  • If you’d like to suggest that the journal passes a review request on to a lab member, rather than sharing the review as a development exercise, then it is important you decline the review but suggest your lab member as an alternative. This is vital to ensure the individual builds up their own reviewing record, and so that the journal editors preserve their right to choose reviewers.
     

Search the Site

Search

Site Advert
  

ALPSP logo


ALPSP logo