Polar Biology - GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
The report form consists of FOUR different parts that allow for communicating your review:
1) OVERALL RECOMMENDATION:
a) Acceptable without revision:
This option meaning 'publish as is' does usually apply after revision only.
b) Acceptable with minor revision:
Please select this option, if you consider the present manuscript suitable for Polar Biology and if the changes required are only minor.
“Minor” does not primarily reflect the quantity of necessary changes but their nature (phrasing, clarity of figures, references, small additions or removals, ms formatting). By opting for this recommendation, you indicate that in your opinion it will not be necessary to send the revised resubmission out for review again.
c) Acceptable with major revision:
By selecting this recommendation, you indicate that you consider the current ms not yet adequate for publication, but a major revision could make it suitable. Such a revision may include thorough restructuring of the ms, severe language editing, extensive revision of arguments or interpretation, further (or other) statistical data analyze but can be achieved without adding more data.
A repeated review is not imperative (the Editor will decide on it) but you may indicate whether you'd like to see a revised and resubmitted version of the ms.
d) Not acceptable w/o revision, encourage resubmission:
This recommendation indicates that the ms contains data or ideas of value but is severely compromised by fundamental flaws. It could be saved, however, a very thorough and comprehensive revision, including additional experiments/sampling/data and a major re-interpretation of the findings. A revised resubmission would be treated as a New Submission and, hence, forwarded to a full-fledged peer-review round. Consequently, this decision is not yet a formal commitment to accept the paper in the end.
e) Reject:
This is a final decision, indicating that in your opinion the ms cannot be saved, not even by a comprehensive revision, e.g., because the topic addressed is too specialized for the wide audience of Polar Biology.
2) GENERAL GRADING of the manuscript according to these three criteria:
a) Scientific value and originality (1 low - 5 excellent)
b) General importance across different fields (1 low - 5 excellent)
c) Appropriateness of methodological approach (1 low - 5 excellent)
3) Your written COMMENTS (i.e., the review proper), comprising two parts that you are asked to submit in separate panes:
a) Blind Comments To Author
Please point out here the problems (general and specific) with the ms and, if possible, make concrete suggestions for improvements. The comments should be friendly and constructive, but unambiguous.
b) Confidential Comments to Editor
Here, you should clearly indicate the specific importance of the study, the general suitability of the (revised) paper for publication in Polar Biology and the main shortcomings. Furthermore, you may give reasons for your overall recommendation (see point 1 above). Lastly, you are invited to indicate whether your identity may be revealed to the author(s).
4) Upload (optional) of ADDITIONAL FILES:
Finally, please note that you can also upload files that may be of further help for the authors, e.g., marked/annotated manuscripts, by clicking the link 'Upload Reviewer Attachments'.
---------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW CRITERIA
When reviewing the manuscript (and judging whether it is suitable for publication in Polar Biology), please pay attention to the following points:
1. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC VALUE AND ORIGINALITY
Issues to be addressed are, for instance:
- What is the relative importance of this work (major, medium, minor)?
- Is the topic addressed suitable for Polar Biology (in geographic/thematic terms)?
- Does the ms provide new insights in the field, or is it just a replication of other work?
- Will the paper have an impact?
- Is the study designed to answer a question of support/disprove a hypothesis or idea or is it mainly descriptive?
- Is there an idea behind the study?
2. GENERAL APPROACH OF THE STUDY
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance:
- Are the research objectives sufficiently clear?
- Are the materials, methods and techniques adequate for the problem tackled?
- Is the experimental or sampling design adequate?
- Are all necessary parameters measured?
- Is the database sufficient or are additional data needed;
if yes, would it be possible to provide them for a revision?
- Are the statistical methods adequate?
3. GENERAL WRITING OF THE MANUSCRIPT
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance:
- Is the paper properly organized?
- Is it concise and clear?
- Can it be abridged without loss (specific suggestions are welcome)?
- Does the language conform to standard rules of English grammar and style?
- Does the ms require language editing (by the author)?
4. TITLE
- Is the title informative and a good reflection of the content?
5. ABSTRACT
- Does the abstract convey the salient points of the paper, e.g.,
- the background and motivation of the study
- its basic methodology and principal findings
- its major conclusions
- its broader scientific significance
6. INTRODUCTION
- Is the problem clearly stated and is it clear why the problem is important or interesting?
- Is the study placed in an appropriate context by referring to citations of previous work?
7. PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL AND METHODS
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance:
- Are the methods described clearly or are additional details needed to reproduce the study?
- Are there control samples/experiments (if required)?
- Are the replicates correct or is there pseudo-replication?
8. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance
- Are the data/results clearly presented?
- Would another form of presentation (table, figure, text) be more helpful?
- Are Genbank accession numbers presented for DNA results?
9. PRESENTATION OF DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance:
- Do the data support the conclusions of the paper?
- Do the authors speculate too much?
- Could they provide additional or other ideas to explain or interpret their results?
10. REFERENCES
- Are the references relevant, up-to-date and accessible?
11. FIGURES AND TABLES
Issues to be addressed here are, for instance:
- Are the figures and tables useful?
- Are all tables and figures needed?
- Do graphs duplicate information given in tables and vice versa?
- Are the figures and tables clear and conspicuous?
- Are color figures necessary?
- Are the figures and tables “self-explaining” (i.e., are all details required to understand the figure or table provided in the caption/legend)?
- Are the figures of sufficient quality? Do they require redrawing?
---------------------------------------------------------
FURTHER INFORMATION
For your information, here are a few further notes that may help you in the review procedure:
- We encourage referees to inform us on any CONFLICT OF INTEREST before reviewing the manuscript.
- Please do not hesitate to inform us as soon as possible, if already after a first check you find the manuscript scientifically or otherwise (e.g., in terms of its thematic or geographic scope) NOT ADEQUATE for publication in %JOURNALFULLTITLE%. This would contribute to the overall acceleration of the editorial process.
- We ask you to keep the manuscript and your review CONFIDENTIAL.
- We acknowledge if reviewers declare potential LIMITATIONS OF EXPERTISE with respect to the manuscript (e.g. concerning specific methods, statistical analyses, language skills etc.). Reviews covering only distinct parts of a manuscript are also welcome, but the restrictions should be made clear.
- LANGUAGE corrections by reviewers help the authors in the revision of the paper. After acceptance, all manuscripts will be lightly copy-edited by the publisher. However, extensive language editing should be completed by the author.
- We'd like to ask you to contribute SPECIFIC and CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions that could improve the manuscript, as they are particularly appreciated by both editors and authors. Please avoid general statements like "manuscript needs shortening", "coverage incomplete" or "discussion wordy". Such statements are of little help to the authors. Instead, try to provide specific suggestions for improvements. For instance, suggest explicitly which sections you think could be deleted without loss of information or, on the other hand, provide references for publications or other information that you think are missing in the current ms.
- You are also invited to mark your comments and suggestions directly in the Word file containing the ms, which you can download clicking the appropriate link at the top of the first ms page in the PDF file containing the entire manuscript. This annotated file will be returned to the authors, together with the comments you wrote into the pane "Blind Comments to Author" (see above).
- Please note that sometimes authors do not follow all suggestions of the referees. Then the Editor has to decide - often on outside advice - whether to ask for a further revision. Moreover, reviews of a given manuscript often differ greatly in their overall assessment. Therefore, it might happen that after revision and further review the Editor finally accepts a paper that had been rejected by one of the referees. We ask for your understanding for such cases.
---------------------------------------------------------