For Reviewer and Editors

Journal of Wildlife and Parks (JWP) serves the wildlife research profession and society at large in many ways, among them by publishing articles which represent the findings of current scientific wildlife research. Every editor of JWP has the responsibility to establish and maintain guidelines for selecting and accepting papers submitted to JWP.

2. Code of Ethics for Reviews and Editors

2.1 Reciprocity
Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to JWP are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

2.2 Independence
JWP Editors and Reviewers must maintain their editorial independence and work to ensure that Authors have editorial freedom. Responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors. Doing so normally entails advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.

2.3 Double-Blind Peer-Review
JWP follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article.
For example, an introductory article written by Guest Editors for a Special Issue would normally be single-blind reviewed, and should be so identified when published. The level of review for an invited work published in the Journal (for example, a Commentary written by the Author(s) who received the JIBS Decade Award) should be stated in the Acknowledgements.

2.4 Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the JWP Editor. The editor and their editorial staff also shall not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.5 Review Quality
Normally, two Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript. Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to Editor's discretion. The Editor should routinely assess all reviews for quality. In rare circumstances, an Editor may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics should be periodically assessed by the JWP Editor-in-Chief to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings should also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the JWP Editorial Review Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers should be available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential.

2.6 Decision Quality
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

2.7 Timeliness
Editors and reviewers should be prompt with their reviews and take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review. If reviewer and editors cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer and Editor should contact JWP Managing editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.