Guidelines for Reviewers
Dear reviewer,
You are a very important part of the Molluscan Horizons ecosystem, so we prepared this brief section to help guide you during the review process.
When you receive a manuscript, our editors‑in‑chief have already determined that it is of interest and within the scope of Molluscan Horizons. You therefore do not need to worry about those aspects and can focus solely on evaluating the study itself.
We suggest completing reviews within 3 weeks, but we understand how academic life can become chaotic without warning. If you need more time, please contact the editor (don’t leave us hanging in uncertainty).
If you are a PI and would like to co‑review the manuscript with a PhD candidate as part of mentoring, please notify the editor beforehand to inform them of the student’s involvement.
Please decline the review if you: belong to the same research group or institution as any of the authors; have a personal, supervisory, or financial relationship with any of the authors; or are working on a competing project. If you are unsure, please consult the editor.
Your review serves two equally important functions:
- Editorial guidance: Provide a clear, evidence‑based assessment that helps the editors decide whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised, or rejected.
- Author development: Offer constructive feedback that helps authors improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and impact of their work, regardless of the editorial decision.
A good review should be:
- Analytical: Identify weaknesses and strengths; evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate and sufficiently described; assess whether the conclusions follow from the data; check that analyses are correctly applied; and consider alternative interpretations the authors may have overlooked.
- Author development: Offer constructive feedback that helps authors improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and impact of their work, regardless of the editorial decision.
A good review should be:
- Analytical: Identify weaknesses and strengths; evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate and sufficiently described; assess whether the conclusions follow from the data; check that analyses are correctly applied; and consider alternative interpretations the authors may have overlooked.
- Specific, not vague: Explain why something is unclear or incorrect and offer concrete suggestions for improvement.
- Constructive, not dismissive: Aim to improve the manuscript (even if recommending rejection) while maintaining a respectful, professional tone. Avoid harsh or patronizing language; provide the authors with the kind of comments you would like to receive.
- Focused on the study, not the authors: Critique the research, not the researchers. Evaluate the manuscript itself and avoid assumptions about the authors’ intentions, abilities, effort, or motivations.
- Constructive, not dismissive: Aim to improve the manuscript (even if recommending rejection) while maintaining a respectful, professional tone. Avoid harsh or patronizing language; provide the authors with the kind of comments you would like to receive.
- Focused on the study, not the authors: Critique the research, not the researchers. Evaluate the manuscript itself and avoid assumptions about the authors’ intentions, abilities, effort, or motivations.
Furthermore, there are a few specific points we would appreciate your close attention to, when applicable:
- correct species identification and up-to-date taxonomy;
- compliance with ICZN rules;
- use of proper malacological (or area-specific) terminology;
- accuracy and presence of citations of taxonomic authorities;
- deposition of type material (mandatory) and of voucher specimens (strongly advised) in public collections;
- ethics and compliance: please flag missing collection or fieldwork permits; missing or unclear animal ethics approvals; or questionable animal handling or welfare practices.
- ethics and compliance: please flag missing collection or fieldwork permits; missing or unclear animal ethics approvals; or questionable animal handling or welfare practices.
Although we expect this to be rare, additional concerns may arise, such as: suspicious data patterns or inconsistencies suggesting fabrication or manipulation; possible plagiarism or duplicate publication; or undisclosed conflicts of interest. If you suspect misconduct, please notify the editor.
As always, please treat manuscripts as confidential documents: do not share, discuss, or use the content for personal research. Do not contact the authors directly. Destroy or delete manuscript files after completing the review.
If you have any questions, please get in touch with our editorial board.
