© John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All articles accepted from 14 August 2012 are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Articles accepted before this date were published under the agreement as stated in the final article.
Edited By: Louis Bernatchez
Impact Factor: 4.569
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2013: 10/46 (Evolutionary Biology)
Online ISSN: 1752-4571
Evolutionary Applications Guidelines for Reviewers
Thank you for agreeing to review for Evolutionary Applications. Below are some guidelines to help you make your decision regarding the suitability of the manuscript for Evolutionary Applications. Many of these guidelines are taken verbatim from “Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice”, by Irene Hames (Blackwell Publishing, 2007).
Submitting your review: Our manuscript central online reviewing site (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/eva) contains instructions regarding how to complete and submit the review online. In exceptional circumstances (access to low-speed internet, etc.) reviewers are welcome to email their review directly to the editorial office: email@example.com.
A note about double-blind reviewing: Evolutionary Applications generally conducts double-blind reviewing, such that authors’ identities are not revealed to the reviewers, and vice versa. Because we use double-blind reviewing, previous reviews and decision letters for resubmitted papers are not downloadable from our Manuscript Central Online Reviewing site. Instead, after the referee agrees to conduct the review, the Managing Editor will email the appropriate review files to the referee. In certain cases it is unavoidable that the authors’ identities be revealed, and we will treat these on a case-by-case basis.
Scope: Evolutionary Applications aims to publish papers that use theory or techniques from evolutionary biology to address questions of practical importance. Why the paper is of ‘applied’ importance should be made obvious to the reader throughout the paper and particularly so in the Introduction. There should be sufficient emphasis of explicitly how the study informs practical matters. For example, the statement “the results of this study can aid conservation biologists in the creation of new wildlife habitats” is not sufficient. In this example, the study must include explicitly how and why the results of the study are informative to the creation of new wildlife habitats. If the manuscript lacks a clear discussion of its practical relevance but appears to have the potential to achieve so, this should be taken into consideration on the decision process and stated in the referee’s report.
Originality and Significance: The journal prefers to publish work that is original rather than confirmation of work done by others. There is some flexibility here if the paper is a Synthesis or Perspective paper, and involves compilations of published literature. However Syntheses and Perspectives are still required to contribute original ideas, and make novel conclusions based on the resulting compilation. Additionally, the significance of the work to the relevant bigger picture should be clear to the reader.
Research objectives: Research objectives should be clearly stated, and should be sufficiently addressed by the study design.
Study design and methodology: The study should be correctly designed to address the research objectives. The appropriate methods should be used correctly. Flaws and omissions need to be brought to the authors’ attention. Authors should describe the statistical analyses used, with justification for why particular analyses were performed (especially if the statistical methods used are obscure).
Soundness of results: The data presented should seem reasonable given the study design. Sufficient replication should have been conducted, and all data should be accounted for.
Interpretation: Data should be analyzed and interpreted within the bounds of the study. Overinterpretation of data is highly discouraged. Alternative explanations should be presented, and results of related studies should be taken into account.
Existing literature: It should be obvious that the existing literature has been cited adequately. The background to the paper should be presented appropriately, and the study should be set in the correct context.
Presentation: The paper should follow a clear and logical order. We encourage the use of standard headings (e.g. Abstract, Introduction, Methods, etc), but in the case of theoretical papers, or Syntheses and Perspectives, the headings should be tailored to the study at hand. An excessive number of tables and figures is discouraged. The paper should have been edited by a native English speaker.