Conservation Update

Peer Review Process

The articles delivered by the editorial board in order to be published to the Conservation Update Journal are submitted a double anonymous reviewing process. The peer-review procedure is as follows:

  1. The editorial board select the papers that respond to the aims, scopes and content of the journal.
  2. The selected manuscripts are presented to experts by the managing editors for review.
  3. An anonymous copy of the papers is given to two external peer reviewers, with experience to the particular field of interest. The peers evaluate the content of the paper on the basis of certain criteria stated the evaluation form for peer reviewer (see below).
  4. The final decision for the publication of the paper is taken by the editorial board, taking into consideration the opinion and the comments of the reviewers.
  5. The decision for the acceptance or the rejection of an article, accompanied with the argument and the anonymous comments of the reviewers and the members editorial board, is made known to the authors.
  6. If the article has been accepted for publishing without any remarks, the CU editorial team will edit the content, process the layout of the article and publish it in the forthcoming issue of the journal.
  7. In the case that an article is accepted with minimal corrections or after essential revision, the authors could submit a revised edition within 20 days. If the revision of the article has taken in consideration the comments for corrections or additions and it is regarded acceptable by the editorial board, it will be put in the publication line for the forthcoming issues.
  8. Depending on the material completed for publishing, the accepted articles will be published within 3 to 9 months, after their submission to the editorial team.
  9. If the author expresses his disagreement with the decision of the editorial board and the remarks and recommendations made by the reviewers, in a written form, the editorial board has the right to give the article to be evaluated by one (or two) new peer reviewers. The editorial board will take the final decision in accordance with the second evaluation.
Evaluation will include the following aspects

  1. Research depth and accuracy of execution

    1. The quality of the methodology used. In the case of interdisciplinary contributions, whether the concepts and methods of the other disciplinary areas been appropriately used/implemented.
    2. The empirical data and structured analysis are well-presented, and consistently and convincingly developed.
    3. The appropriate methodology was used.
    4. The paper will be examined on the concepts and methods used from other disciplinary areas, and whether it gives a convincing and accurate handling of the data within the interdisciplinary framework.
    5. In summary, the paper will be assessed on the following points:
      • Structure
      • Depth
      • Sequence

  2. Originality, State of the Art

    1. The paper meets the criterion of state of the art.
    2. The paper challenges existing paradigms or practices in the relevant discipline.
    3. The paper provides the necessary precision approach, with new texts/data/phenomena which had been previously ignored.
    4. The paper leads to new conclusions or innovative results.
    5. In summary the paper will be assessed on the following points:
      • State of the art
      • Challenge
      • Quality and accuracy of text
      • New data, new sources
      • Original concepts, approaches, arguments

  3. Importance for present and future studies in the research field

    1. The paper contributes to the development of knowledge in the discipline.
    2. The paper contributes to the progress of knowledge in theoretical and methodological applications.
    3. In terms of international scientific exchanges, the paper contributes or has contributed to the development of the debate on the topic.
    4. The paper can be regarded as a contribution to a national and/or international field of research.

  4. Conclusion

    The main contributions, advantages and/or disadvantages of the paper and the suggestions to be accepted, processed, or rejected will be given a concise constructive justification