Publisher:

Bird Committee of the East Africa Natural History Society

Contact email: office@naturekenya.org 

Sources of Support:

Website hosting by Nature Kenya.

Peer Review:

The editor receives a manuscript from the (corresponding) author and makes the initial decision whether to reject it outright or take it through the editorial process. If the latter, he/she decides whether to deal with it or allocate a member of the Editorial Board to take it through the editorial process and make a decision on it (this depends on both the topic of the article and the workloads at the time). The editor in charge of the manuscript then identifies appropriate reviewers and emails the article to them (after inquiring about their willingness to review the article at the time), together with a covering letter and reviewer instructions to guide their responses. Typically, there are at least two referees for any given article. The referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Except for the confidential note to the Editor, most of the referees’ comments are eventually seen by the author. Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, usually along the lines of:

  • to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal
  • to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways
  • to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission
  • to reject it outright.

The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees’ comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments (NB: the members of the Editorial Board take the manuscript through this entire process – communicating back and forth with the authors as necessary – and only communicate to the Editor the final decision and/or final manuscript ready for the proofing stage).

As is generally accepted, the role of the referees remains advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work (i.e., when an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript), the editor can solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker, if they feel they are not in a position to make the final call. Though reviewers traditionally remain anonymous to the authors, they are encouraged to sign their reviews, thereby relinquishing anonymity. The accepted papers therefore contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper.

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.

Authors retain copyright of their work published in Scopus and it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

General:

Focus and Scope

Scopus welcomes original contributions on all aspects of the ornithology of eastern Africa, en­compassing the area from the Sudan south to Mozambique and including the Indian Ocean islands.

Contributions comprise original papers, short communications (normally less than two pages in length), short notes and records, notic­es, and letters. Original papers and short com­munications should present new information that has not been published or been submitted for publication elsewhere. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and they will be assessed by at least one member of the editorial board as well as by independent referees.

Peer Review Process

The editor receives a manuscript from the (corresponding) author and makes the initial decision whether to reject it outright or take it through the editorial process. If the latter, he/she decides whether to deal with it or allocate a member of the Editorial Board to take it through the editorial process and make a decision on it (this depends on both the topic of the article and the workloads at the time). The editor in charge of the manuscript then identifies appropriate reviewers and emails the article to them (after inquiring about their willingness to review the article at the time), together with a covering letter and reviewer instructions to guide their responses. Typically, there are at least two referees for any given article. The referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Except for the confidential note to the Editor, most of the referees’ comments are eventually seen by the author. Referees' evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, usually along the lines of:

  • to unconditionally accept the manuscript or proposal
  • to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways
  • to reject it, but encourage revision and invite resubmission
  • to reject it outright.

The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees’ comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments (NB: the members of the Editorial Board take the manuscript through this entire process – communicating back and forth with the authors as necessary – and only communicate to the Editor the final decision and/or final manuscript ready for the proofing stage).

As is generally accepted, the role of the referees remains advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work (i.e., when an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript), the editor can solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker, if they feel they are not in a position to make the final call. Though reviewers traditionally remain anonymous to the authors, they are encouraged to sign their reviews, thereby relinquishing anonymity. The accepted papers therefore contain, in the acknowledgments section, thanks to anonymous or named referees who helped improve the paper.

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.

Authors retain copyright of their work published in Scopus and it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Sources of Support

Website hosting by Nature Kenya.

Journal Identifiers


eISSN: 2313-1799
print ISSN: 0250-4162