Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Peer review process

All Research, Management, Review and History manuscripts accepted for submission in Pachyderm, go through a formal peer-review process. Peer review is the independent assessment of a research paper by experts in the relevant field, to evaluate the manuscript’s quality and suitability for publication, and its significance to advance the conservation management of wild populations of pachyderms.

Our peer review acts as a form of scientific quality control as well as checking that the use of English/French languages makes for clear readability; and gives very useful feedback for authors. This feedback can be used to improve your manuscript before it is published, alert authors to issues found, or gaps in the literature they may have overlooked. In this way, peer review is a collaborative process, where authors receive constructive input from peers to support and advance their work.

Every journal depends on the essential hard work of reviewers who test and refine each manuscript before publication.

For a specialist journal such as Pachyderm, the section editors/editor cannot be experts in the topic of every manuscript submitted. So, the feedback and comments of carefully selected reviewers are an essential guide to inform the editor’s decision on a research paper.

We choose from a list of over 300 reviewers and ask that they provide a breakdown of the pros and cons of the given manuscript to enable the author to make the appropriate changes for the manuscript's inclusion. We also ask our reviewers to recommend a rating, choosing from the following: ‘Accept submission’, ‘Revisions required’, ‘Resubmit for review’,‘Resubmit elsewhere’, ‘Decline submission’. Additional support and/or feedback on manuscripts is often, but not always, provided. Our reviewers have the option of remaining 'blind' or not.

An author must follow the reviewer's recommendations unless there is good reason not to do so. Authors are invited to respond to a reviewer’s feedback. These responses are checked by the Section Editors and Editor. It is rare that an author disregards the reviewers’ proposed improvements.

You can find more information in Information for Authors. If you have further queries, kindly contact our Managing Editor, Suzannah Goss.