Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

The Role of the Peer Reviewer

Your expertise and impartial assessment are central to the editorial process at Fungal Taxa: Systematics & Evolution. By agreeing to review, you help maintain the scientific and nomenclatural integrity of the journal, ensure the robustness of published research, and provide constructive guidance that strengthens the work of fellow scientists. We deeply value your contribution to the global systematics community.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

When invited to review, please consider the following promptly:

● Expertise: Accept a review only if the manuscript falls within your area of knowledge and you can provide an informed, critical evaluation.
● Conflict of Interest: Disclose any financial, professional, or personal connections with the authors or their research that may compromise your objectivity. If unsure, communicate potential conflicts to the editor before proceeding.
● Availability: Confirm you can complete the review within the specified timeline. If not, decline promptly so an alternative reviewer can be secured without delay.
 

Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities

● Confidentiality: Submitted manuscripts are strictly confidential. They must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage before publication.
● Identifying Potential Misconduct: Reviewers are asked to be alert for plagiarism, data manipulation, inappropriate reuse of figures or text, or nomenclatural violations. Such concerns should be reported confidentially to the Handling Editor, not directly to the authors.

Conducting Your Review

Your review should provide a fair, balanced, and constructive evaluation. Please consider:

● Novelty and Significance: Does the manuscript contribute new and meaningful taxonomic or evolutionary insights? Does it clarify relationships or describe taxa of genuine significance?
● Methodology: Are methods (morphological, molecular, phylogenetic, statistical) appropriate and described in enough detail for replication?
● Data and Results: Are descriptions, diagnoses, figures, and sequence data clear, accurate, and sufficient to support the conclusions?
● Nomenclatural Compliance: For taxonomic papers, do the names, types, and designations follow the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICNafp)? Are MycoBank registration numbers provided?
● Discussion and Conclusions: Are findings contextualized within current literature? Do conclusions flow logically from the results, and are limitations acknowledged?
● Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and presented with appropriate illustrations, tables, and references?

Structuring Your Report

Please structure your review to help both editors and authors:

1. Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript’s focus, main findings, and your overall impression. 
2. Major Comments: Substantive concerns (e.g., methodological issues, missing data, nomenclatural errors) that must be resolved.  
3. Minor Comments: Smaller corrections or clarifications (e.g., wording, formatting, typographical errors).  
4. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional): Observations on potential ethical issues or sensitive feedback not to be shared with authors.  
5. Recommendation: Provide a clear recommendation (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject), with justification.
   

Transparency and Recognition

With reviewer consent, Fungal Taxa: Systematics & Evolution may disclose the names of Handling Editors and peer reviewers alongside published articles, acknowledging their role in ensuring scientific rigor and accuracy.