For reviewers
Reviewing for this journal
A working guide for reviewers of the Journal of Evolutionary Science. It covers what to decide before accepting an invitation, what a review here is asked to establish, and the rules on confidentiality and tools. Reviewing confers no advantage in the review of a reviewer's own submissions.
- ModelSingle-blind by default; double-blind on request
- Your roleAdvise the editor on the evidence
- The decisionRests with the editor
Before accepting an invitation
Three checks, and all three are quicker to make now than to unpick later.
- Expertise — you can judge the methods actually used, not only the subject area. If you can assess part of the manuscript but not all of it, accept and say which part; a partial review from the right specialist is more useful than a complete one from the wrong.
- Independence — you have no competing or collaborative interest with the authors, no shared institution or recent joint work, and no financial interest in the outcome. Declare anything borderline and let the editor decide.
- Capacity — you can complete the review in a reasonable period. If you cannot, decline promptly and, if you can, suggest someone who could.
Confidential from the moment you are invited
The manuscript, its content and the fact of its submission are confidential. Do not share it, quote it, or use what you learn from it before publication.
What a review here establishes
The central question is whether the evidence carries the claim the manuscript actually makes, judged in relation to the methods used.
- The claim — is it stated plainly, and is its reach the reach the evidence supports?
- The methods — appropriate to the question, and reported so the analysis could be repeated: data sources, software and versions, model choices, priors and parameters where they determine the result.
- The analysis — support values, effect sizes and uncertainty reported and interpreted correctly; assumptions made explicit.
- The evidence and materials — data-availability statement present; accessions, alignments, trees or code available or their absence explained; specimen and locality provenance documented.
- The literature — the relevant work engaged, including work the manuscript argues against.
- Ethics and reporting — approvals, permits and trial registration where they apply, and the reporting guideline that matches the design.
Not yours to require
Novelty, a mechanistic account, a clinical or practical benefit, a particular organism, study setting or population: none of these is a requirement at this journal. Assess the evidence appropriate to the contribution in front of you.
- Descriptive or observational work
- Assessed on its own terms; it can address an evolutionary question without a causal design
- Replication and confirmation
- A contribution in its own right, held to the same standard as a novel claim
- Methods and resources
- Assessed on purpose, validation and whether others can use them
- A result that unsettles a consensus
- Held to the same standard as one that confirms it, no higher
Writing the review
- Separate the essential from the optionalSay which points must be addressed for the conclusions to hold, and which would improve the paper without being conditions.
- Be specificPoint to the section, figure or line. A reviewer's objection is only useful to the extent an author can act on it.
- Address the work, not the authorWrite what you would be content to have attributed to you.
- Recommend, and say whyYour recommendation advises the editor; the decision is the editor's. Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
- On a revised manuscriptCheck the response to your points and whether the changes address them. Raise a genuinely new problem only where the revision created it.
Confidentiality, tools and files
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
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.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
If you suspect plagiarism, image or data manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or duplicate submission, tell the editor rather than raising it with the authors. The editorial office investigates under COPE guidance.
- Sharing with a colleague
- Only with the editor's agreement, and the colleague is then bound by the same terms
- Using the content
- Not before publication, in your own work or anywhere else
- AI assistance
- Permission first, disclosure after
- When you are finished
- Delete the files
Reference
The scope a manuscript is judged against, and the policies a review works under.