Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa NPC
P O Box 2586
Sources of Support:
Donations and membership subscriptions to LepSoc Africa, including sponsor members. Editorial staff function on a voluntary basis or with a modest honorarium payment. Page charges for articles in excess of ten pages.
- All full scientific articles will be evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers, duly selected and appointed by the Editor.
- Peer review will be conducted on a single-blind basis, with the peer reviewers remaining anonymous if they so wish.
- The peer review process will normally be completed within a calendar month for manuscripts of less than 10 000 words.
- NOTES will undergo peer review by one reviewer only, with the scientific content also scrutinised and quality checked by the Editor and/ or Sub-Editor.
- The Editor has the sole discretion to decide which manuscripts are published.
Selection of peer reviewers
- The journal maintains a register of approved peer reviewers (available for inspection if requested)
- Peer reviewers will be selected from this register whose skills and experience best matches the scientific content of the manuscript submitted. Should none of our current peer reviewers have sufficient credentials to perform the review the Editor will consult with the Editorial Board for recommendations of suitable reviewers.
- The Editor will then invite the selected reviewers to do the review, sending them the current “Guidance for peer reviewers” document and “Peer reviewers report” (see below).
Guidance for peer reviewers
Please ensure that the confidentiality of the peer review process and that the propriety rights of those who have submitted the manuscripts are kept intact.
Reviewers must decline a request to review manuscripts if they are aware of a conflict of interest or they should disclose the nature of the conflict of interest to the Editor.
Metamorphosis is committed to the timely publication of all pertinent, original and innovative contributions submitted for publication. As such, the identification and selection of reviewers who have expertise and interest in the topics appropriate to each manuscript are essential elements in ensuring a timely, productive peer review process. If you would like to become a reviewer, please register with Metamorphosis and ensure that all your contact details are correct.
Peer reviewers are asked to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the following criteria are applied when evaluating a manuscript:
- each manuscript should be assessed on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority or institutional affiliation of the author
- the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations and its exposition are judged objectively
- keep to the timeframes set out by the Editor
- your judgements are explained and supported
While the content of a manuscript may justify criticism, even severe criticism, under no circumstances is any personal criticism of the author appropriate or acceptable. You may be asked to reappraise a manuscript that was referred back to the authors after a first-round review. In cases where reviewers provide substantively different ratings, a manuscript will be sent to an arbitrator (typically a senior Editorial Board member) for a final verdict.
A reviewer is responsible for assessing:
- The scientific integrity of the research, including the methodologies employed.
- The quality of the data obtained and how it has been analysed.
- The quality of the figures and presentation of any tables.
- The intellectual rigour of the discussion section and any inferences drawn.
- When a taxonomic paper is being reviewed, particular attention must be paid to the requirements of the ICZN and point out any deviations from this Code.
- The logic of the conclusions put forward and the validity of the recommendations.
- Whether there is any evidence or suspicion of plagiarism.
- The relevance of the work of other researchers that have been cited and whether there is other work by other researchers not mentioned in the article which may have a bearing on the discussion and conclusions.
A reviewer is not necessarily responsible for, and may omit to:
- Point out minor formatting or editing issues unless they directly impinge on the scientific integrity of the article.
- Correct grammatical or spelling errors, unless they obscure or change the meaning of the text.
These issues will be dealt with by the journal’s Sub-Editor or editorial assistant.
After receiving the invitation email from the Editor, the five steps of the review process are:
- Read through the manuscript to assess whether you are able and willing to do the review.
- Notify the Editor as soon as possible whether you are able to perform the review or not. Declare any conflicts of interest that you may have.
- Conduct your review using the track changes facility in the “Word” programme.
- Fill out a review report in the prescribed format (see next page).
- Submit your Word review report with tracked changes to the Editor as an e-mail with attachments. Make a recommendation to the Editor regarding the manuscript (see outcomes of the review process).
After the review is complete, the reviewer’s reports and other documents will be returned to the senior (or corresponding) author if necessary for response and correction. Failure to adequately address the issues raised by the reviewers to the Editor’s satisfaction may result in the article(s) being rejected for publication. In the event of any kind of dispute the Editor’s decision is final.
Outcomes of the review process
The Editor will evaluate the review reports from the reviewers and make a final decision. The outcome will be categorised as one of the following:
- Acceptable as is (apart from editorial changes).
- Acceptable, but requires minor revision (to the satisfaction of the Editor).
- Requires major revision and reconsideration (will require to be reviewed again).
- Rejected, not acceptable for publication in the journal.
To keep Reviewers informed on the final decision on the manuscript, the Editor will:
- At the conclusion of the review, if requested, provide them the review reports of other reviewers.
- Give feedback on the outcome of a manuscript.
Open Access Policy:
Articles are published primarily through our Open Access website www.metamorphisis.org.za, after peer review and any necessary revisions. Printed versions of the journal are produced annually, or in the case of supplements when the article (or articles) is/are complete and published on the website.
One volume per year, divided as necessary into parts or issues.
Objectives of LepSoc Africa and Metamorphosis
- To encourage scientific research into, and conservation of, African Lepidoptera.
- To increase the visibility and enhance the reputation of the Lepidopterists’ Society of Africa and Metamorphosis to the world Scientific and Conservation communities.
- To establish LepSocAfrica’s position as the primary source of information on African Lepidoptera.
- For the Metamorphosis website to be fully Open Access, and to make all previously published as well as current Metamorphosis articles available to any member of the public as PDFs.
- To continuously improve the quality and volume of the published articles and the scientific standing of Metamorphosis.
- To continually expand the quantity and quality of the Editorial Board and the Metamorphosis peer reviewers.
- To encourage authors new to scientific publishing by providing mentors where needed to develop author skills.
To make the encyclopaedia "Afrotropical Butterflies" freely available on the Metamorphosis website.
Metamorphosisproduces hard copies (printed versions) of each part or issue of the journal at the end of each calendar year, or volume. These publications are detailed and available for sale (including all back issues) on the LepSoc Africa website at the following URL: https://www.lepsocafrica.org/?p=publications&s=Shop. Orders can be placed by contacting the administrative secretary at email@example.com.