Laboratoire d’entomologie appliquée et fonctionnelle (Lenaf), Institut facultaire des sciences agronomiques de Yangambi.
All submissions to AJTER are first checked to ensure they are complete and only then sent for evaluation by the editor who will decide if they are suitable for peer review. Where the Editor-in-Chief is on the list of authors or has other competing interests regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be responsible for overseeing peer review. The editor will take the peer review reports into account when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations contained therein. An issue raised by a single peer reviewer or by the editor himself may result in the rejection of the manuscript. Authors receive reports from
Proceedings papers are reviewed by the chairpersons and program committee members of the conference concerned, with the assistance of external reviewers selected by them.
Selection of peer reviewers
The selection of peer reviewers is essential to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflicts of interest and past performance. Speed, rigour, solidity of reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.
– The editor(s) is/are expected to obtain a minimum of two reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analyzes of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent assessors. In such cases, the editor(s) may wish to make the decision to publish based on a single peer review report. When making a decision based on a single report, the writer(s) should only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
– Peer review reports must be written in French or English depending on the language used in the Manuscript by the authors and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors' work, in particular with regard to the relevance of the methods used, the accuracy of the results and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on comments from peer reviewers who meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports that do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
– The editor is responsible for independently verifying the contact details of reviewers proposed by the authors or other third parties. Where possible, institutional email addresses should be used to invite reviewers. Each manuscript must be reviewed by at least one reviewer who has not been suggested by the author.
– Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analyzes of primary research, such as editorials, book reviews, commentaries, or opinion pieces, may be accepted without peer review. These manuscripts should be reviewed by the editor(s) if the subject falls within the area of expertise of the editor(s); if the subject is outside the area of expertise of the editor(s), such manuscripts should be reviewed by at least one independent expert reviewer or member of the editorial board.
On the rare, exceptional occasions when it is not possible to find two independent peer reviewers, the editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using a single report.
● The editor should have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the field if acting as a second reviewer.
● The editor must sign the review to ensure the transparency of the peer review process.
● Any single report should be detailed and thorough.
● The first reviewer must be senior, on the subject and have recently published on the subject.
Prospective reviewers should inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between the editor and reviewers contain confidential information that should not be disclosed to third parties.
The AJTER review allows authors to suggest potential reviewers and request that some of them be disregarded (usually two to four people/research groups at most). The Editor-in-Chief will take such requests into consideration, but are not obligated to comply with them. The Editor's decision regarding the selection of reviewers is final.
Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as them. Authors may suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information that will assist the editor in verifying the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. These include the suggested reviewer's institutional email address and their ORCID or Scopus ID.
Diversity of Peer Reviewers
AJTER is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and we strive for a diverse demographic representation of Peer Reviewers. The Editor is strongly encouraged to consider geographic regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.
Misconduct by peer reviewers
Providing false or misleading information – for example, impersonation and suggesting false peer reviewers – will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in accordance with AJTER's policy on of misconduct and notification to institutions/employers of perpetrators. AJTER plans to be a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in the future.
Peer review model
As mentioned before, AJTER applies a double-blind peer review system, ie. the identity of the authors and reviewers is not disclosed. Peer review by Research Square is double-blind. The pre-publication history of articles is not posted online.
Tips for peer review
The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the editor with the information needed to make a decision that is fair, evidence-based, and consistent with the journal's editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their article so that it can be accepted for publication. Reports with a recommendation for rejection of the article should explain the main weaknesses of the research, which will help authors prepare their manuscript for submission to another journal.
Peer reviewers must adhere to the principles of the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Confidential comments directed to the editor are welcome, but should not contradict the main points of the report for the authors.
Peer reviewers should evaluate articles exclusively against the journal's publication criteria.
The following conventions should be adhered to:
– Reviewers should familiarize themselves with the journal's peer review policy before disclosing their reviewer role.
– Evaluations should be conducted objectively.
– Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory or slanderous remarks.
– Evaluators must express their point of view clearly, with supporting arguments and references.
– Evaluators must declare any potential competing interests.
– Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or ties with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected with the articles.
– Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of materials provided to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
– Any reviewer wishing to extend an invitation to a colleague for peer review should contact the journal first.
Any concerns regarding these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be reported to the editorial team.
In the assessment/review report, we ask reviewers the following types of questions, in order to provide an assessment of different aspects of a manuscript:
– Main findings: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work .
– Validity: Does the manuscript have any flaws that should prohibit publication? If yes, please provide details.
– Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
– Data and methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, the quality of the data and the quality of the presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including extended data and supplemental information. Is the presentation of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to allow replication of results?
– Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the legends of the corresponding figures; please comment if not. Please include in your report specific commentary on the adequacy of the statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of error bars and probability values.
– Conclusions: Do you find the conclusions and the interpretation of the data to be solid, valid and reliable?
– Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain inappropriate or potentially defamatory language?
– Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work during a revision.
– References: Does this manuscript refer to previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at a forced citation by the reviewer will be noted in your file in our database.
– Clarity and context: Is the summary clear, accessible? Are the summary, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
– Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data or analysis that you believe is outside the scope of your expertise or that you have not been able to fully assess.
– Please respond to any other specific questions posed by the editor.
– Be sure to check whether the author or authors have followed our guidelines on sex and gender in research.
– Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief/AJTER (contact person of the journal concerned) at firstname.lastname@example.org , if they wish to make an allegation of misconduct in relation to publication or research, for example plagiarism or image manipulation, regarding an item they are reviewing.
Before submitting your report, take a moment to read it and put yourself in the authors' shoes. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone used shock you? Is he courteous and professional? Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the AJTER Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.
Reports do not have to follow this specific order, but should document the peer reviewer's thought process. The review sometimes provides a series of questions that reviewers/reviewers will need to answer specifically. All statements should be substantiated and argued in detail, citing supporting facts and references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and on which reviewers feel qualified to comment. Not all of the above will necessarily apply to every article, due to discipline-specific standards. If in doubt about discipline-specific peer review standards, reviewers can contact the editor at email@example.com advice.
AJTER is committed to respecting diversity, equity and inclusion. The reviewer should report any concerns that may affect this commitment.
It is our policy to remain neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and naming conventions used in maps and affiliations are left to the discretion of the authors. Reviewers should therefore not ask authors to make changes to it, unless it is essential for the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.
AJTER journal is committed to making editorial decisions and publishing quickly, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to both our authors and the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the agreed number of days. If the reviewers foresee a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, find alternatives.
Recognition from peer reviewers
AJTER is committed to recognizing the invaluable service rendered by its dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appraisal program, upon completion of a quality peer review in a timely manner, we will be happy to provide an official peer review certificate (signed scanned copy), annual nomination for the "Evaluator of the Year" competition. Winners of the contest will receive the prestigious “Editor of the Year” certificate (signed scanned copy). The photograph and short biography of the selected reviewers will be published in the annual print version of our journal. This will be a book with international distribution. As expected in the future,
Scientific names: The full scientific name (genus and species) and, if applicable, the cultivar or strain, must be indicated for all animals when they are first mentioned; authorities are only needed for taxonomic items. The generic name may be abbreviated to an initial in subsequent references, except at the beginning of a sentence and where intermediate references to other genders would cause confusion.
All names must conform to the articles and recommendations of the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .
Nucleotide Sequence Data: All DNA sequences should be deposited in GenBank and should not be repeated in the article unless highly relevant. The GenBank registration number must be provided for each sequence (for example, in the supplementary information).
Open Access Policy:
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
This journal publishes three times a year.
African Journal of Tropical Entomology Research (AJTER) publishes mainly electronically (Online) and the print version will be produced annually and includes articles published during the previous year. AJTER is the official publication of the Laboratory of Applied and Functional Entomology (Lenaf) in partnership with the Faculty Institute of Agronomic Sciences of Yangambi, in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Entomological Society of Congo (SECo), website: https://seco-cd.org/