All research articles and most other content published in the Journal of Tropical Biology undergo rigorous peer review, typically by at least two independent experts.

Submitted manuscripts first undergo an integrity check prior to editorial assessment for suitability. The Editorial Board holds ultimate responsibility for the journal's scientific quality. Should an editor have a potential conflict of interest (e.g., authorship or other competing interests), another board member will oversee the review process for that manuscript.

While editors consider reviewer reports when making decisions, they are not bound by them. Authors receive both the reviewer comments and the final editorial decision.

Type of Review

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system. While the editors and handling editors are aware of the authors' identities, the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other, ensuring impartiality.

Editorial Structure and Roles

1. Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC holds overall responsibility for the journal's editorial direction, content selection, editorial team management, and policies.

2. Executive Editor: Reports to the EIC, oversees daily operations, assists in manuscript decision-making, and may act as a liaison with authors.

3. Advisory Board: Provides strategic guidance on the journal's scope and long-term goals, offers expert advice, and may assist in resolving ethical disputes or appeals.

4. Associate Editors (AEs): Subject matter experts who manage the peer review process for assigned manuscripts. They evaluate submissions, secure reviews, recommend decisions (accept, revise, reject), and guide authors through revision.

5. Guest Editors: Responsible for the scientific quality and coordination of Special Issues, from proposal approval to content collection and review oversight.

6. Reviewers: Provide critical evaluations and constructive feedback on manuscripts, forming the basis for editorial decisions.

Peer Review and Editorial Process

For detailed steps, please refer to the "Three-Review and Three-Proofreading" workflow document.

After external review, the Associate Editor (AE) synthesizes the reviewer reports and provides a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), who makes the final decision. The AE may recommend one of the following outcomes:

1. Accept

2. Minor Revision: Authors are encouraged to address minor points within 14 days. The revised manuscript is typically assessed by the AE without returning to external reviewers.

3. Major Revision: Substantive revisions are required within 1 month. The revised manuscript and a point-by-point response must be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation within a 2-week deadline. Failure to adequately address critiques may lead to rejection. The editor may initiate additional rounds of review if needed.

4. Reject but Encourage Resubmission: The current version is not acceptable, but a significantly revised manuscript may be reconsidered if submitted within 6 months. It may be reviewed by the same or different reviewers, or assessed editorially.

5. Reject: The manuscript is declined with no option for resubmission.

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and proofing. Proofs are sent electronically to the corresponding author for approval.

Appeal Procedure

Appeals are considered on a case-by-case basis and must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office at rdswxb@hainanu.edu.cn. Appeals based solely on the perceived novelty or scope of the research are generally not considered.