All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, one of whom may be a member of the Editorial Advisory Board.

Review Criteria

Manuscripts may be rejected if they:

• Do not align with the journal’s scope.
• Do not meet ethical standards (e.g., false authorship, plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, citation manipulation).
• Fail to meet the required quality or formatting standards.
• Contain significant grammatical errors.
• Do not respond to editorial correspondence within three months.
• Receive negative evaluations from two reviewers.

The primary criteria for publication are scientific quality and relevance to biological and natural conservation.

Reviewer Selection

Authors may suggest 5–10 potential reviewers and request exclusion of specific reviewers. However, the final decision on reviewer selection rests with the editorial team. Reviewers must have a Scopus-ID, Researcher-ID (Thomson Reuters), or a track record as a corresponding author in this journal. They must be from different institutions than the authors and, preferably, from at least three different countries.

Review Frequency

Reviewers may be invited multiple times based on their expertise and availability. The reviewer list is updated periodically.

Proofs and Publication

Uncorrected proofs are sent to the corresponding author via email in .doc, .docx, or .rtf format for checking typographical errors. Corrections should be returned within 7 days to avoid delays.

Accepted papers are published online continuously in chronological order and included in the printed version, which is released monthly.