For editors
Handling a manuscript for this journal
A working guide for editors of the Journal of Evolutionary Science: what to check at each stage, what to keep separate from what, and where the full rule sits when a case needs one. It supplements the editorial policies rather than replacing them.
- Review modelSingle-blind by default; double-blind on request
- External reviewNormally at least two independent experts
- Full policyEditorial policies
Scope triage: what the question is, and what it is not
At triage the only question is whether the manuscript makes a substantive contribution to understanding evolutionary processes, patterns or concepts, or to the methods, resources and applications used to study them. That question is settled by the aims and scope.
The remit spans organisms, populations and comparative contexts, across fundamental and applied research. Observational and experimental studies, replication and confirmation, and reviews and evidence syntheses can each contribute, and a study may also contribute to another field.
Scope eligibility and the quality of the evidence are assessed separately. A manuscript that is in scope but whose evidence needs work goes to review or back for revision on that basis; it is not turned away as out of scope.
Not a scope test
Novelty, a mechanistic account, a clinical or practical benefit, a particular study setting, organism or population: none of these is a condition of scope at this journal. Do not apply one as though it were.
The handling sequence
- ScreenAll submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review. Check scope, completeness, ethics and permit statements, and the data-availability statement.
- Check your own positionDeclare any conflict and recuse where one exists. An editor who is an author on the manuscript, or has a competing or collaborative interest with its authors, hands it to another editor.
- Assign reviewersManuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Choose for subject expertise and independence, and check the reviewer has no conflict before inviting.
- Read the reviews against the claimWeigh whether the evidence supports the claim actually made, whether methods were reported so the analysis can be repeated, and whether the manuscript engages the relevant literature. Reviewers advise; the decision is the editor's.
- Decide and explainEditorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal. Give the author reasons they can act on.
Confidentiality, anonymity and files
A submitted manuscript is confidential to the editors and reviewers handling it until it is published. It is not shared, quoted or used for any other purpose.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers. Check the reviewer file before it goes out: names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding details and institution names all have to be absent from it.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured. The same restriction applies to an editor's own use of such tools on a manuscript in hand.
- Who may see a submission
- The handling editor and the invited reviewers
- Double-blind requested
- Verify the reviewer file carries no identifying information
- AI tools
- Permission first, disclosure after, and never where confidentiality is not assured
- Files afterwards
- Deleted once the handling is finished
Appeals, complaints and integrity concerns
- An appeal against a decision goes to the editorial office, and is not handled by the editor whose decision is being questioned.
- A complaint about process is handled by the editorial office under COPE guidance.
- A suspected integrity problem — plagiarism, image or data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, authorship disputes, duplicate submission — is referred to the editorial office rather than resolved in correspondence with the author. Do not put an allegation to an author before the editorial office has been informed.
- A problem found after publication is corrected in the open, as a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction; the routes are set out in the editorial policies.
Where the full rules are
This guide is a summary for day-to-day handling. Where a case turns on the exact rule, the policy pages govern.