Peer Review Policy
All materials published in the JESI are peer-reviewed based on open peer review (single-blind peer review). Each manuscript is initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) in terms of structure and content. If it meets the scope and standard of the journal, it will be sent to an appropriate subject editor (SE). The SE evaluates the manuscript based on its novelty, structure, and plagiarism. If the manuscript passes this initial editor check, then it will enter the external review process, where, two to three referees will evaluate it within a specified timeframe. In another word, each article undergoes two stages of evaluation: an internal evaluation by the EIC and the SE followed by an external review phase. The EIC makes the final decision based on the reviewer reports and also the suggestions of the SE.
The key criteria for assessing manuscript quality include originality, novelty, a worthy contribution to entomology and its related fields, as well as the provision of new information. Additional factors include the manuscript's structure, adherence to author guidelines, reference quality, and English writing style, including grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The JESI strongly expects reviewers to be confident during the review process. We encourage the reviewer to provide a two-paragraph report addressing the aims, questions, and hypotheses of the MS including its contribution to the area of research. The report should highlight the importance of the work and provide a conceptual short message to explain interesting aspects, scientific methods, and conclusions based on the data.
Reviewers assist the Editors of JESI in making decisions regarding manuscript acceptance and contribute to the improvement of the manuscript through their feedback.
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript should decline the request. We invite all reviewers to follow the COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers).
The JESI always seeking reviewers who can provide critical and constructive comments while remaining anonymous and adhering to the deadlines. If there is any conflict of interest, like professional relations, friendship, collaboration, or competition, the reviewers should decline the invitation for the review.
Reviewers list ( last five years)
The evaluation process is illustrated here.
