Evaluation process

Processing and Evaluation of Manuscripts Submitted:

The Editor in Chief will acknowledge receipt of the manuscript to the corresponding author.

The manuscript will be evaluated by the Editor in Chief to confirm if it fits within the journal’s scope and the formatting rules. Manuscripts that do not agree with the recommended format will be returned to the corresponding author for adjustments.

The Editor in Chief will send the manuscript to an Associate Editor (Area Editor), who will remove from the manuscript all information that might identify the authors, and proceed with making a preliminary evaluation, with the power to:

  • reject it, returning it to the Editor in Chief, with a justification. The Editor in Chief will inform the corresponding author of the rejection.
  • send it for evaluation to two or three ad-hoc reviewers. The Associate Editor can act as an ad-hoc reviewer.

The ad-hoc reviewers will use a semi-quantitative scale (see here) to minimize the subjectivity inherent to the evaluation of scientific quality. These reviewers will have three weeks to evaluate the manuscript.

On receiving the ad-hoc reviews, the Associate Editor will choose one of the options below:

  • manuscript rejected. This decision will be communicated to the Editor in Chief, with a justification.
  • manuscript accepted with a few corrections and/or suggestions to the authors. The authors should carry out the modifications or are obliged to present arguments against them, submitting a second version of the manuscript. This second version will be evaluated only by the Associate Editor.
  • manuscript not accepted, needing to be improved substantially for a new evaluation. A second version of the manuscript should be prepared and submitted by the authors within 45 days at most. This second version will be evaluated by the Associate Editor, who may make a final decision (rejection or acceptance) or send it to one or more of the ad-hoc reviewers who evaluated the first version of the manuscript. It is forbidden to send the second version of a manuscript to new ad-hoc reviewers.

The Editors of Nematoda will endeavor to return manuscripts at any stage of evaluation to the corresponding author within a maximum of 4 weeks.

At any stage of the manuscript’s processing and evaluation the corresponding author may make a complaint directly to the Editor in Chief if there is:

  1. excessive delay;
  2. breach of the rules outlined in these guidelines;
  3. signs of non-ethical or prejudiced treatment, or a conflict of interest.

Making a complaint will not prejudice the progress of the manuscript in question or of future submissions. The Editor in Chief will evaluate the complaint and, if necessary, take the appropriate action.

Accepted manuscripts will be processed for online publication, and the author(s) should promptly respond to requests for files and for proof-reading. Some copies of Nematoda (complete issue) will be printed for donation to major libraries, research and teaching institutions.

Share this page
Page Sections