Editorial policies
The rules the journal decides by
These policies govern how the Journal of Evolutionary Science assesses a manuscript, who is accountable for each decision, what authors are required to disclose, and how the record is corrected when something turns out to be wrong. They apply to every submission.
- Peer reviewSingle-blind by default; double-blind on request
- License termsCC BY 4.0, authors retain copyright
- Guidance followedCOPE
Two separate questions
A decision rests on two assessments that the journal keeps apart, because conflating them is how good work gets turned away for the wrong reason.
Is the manuscript in scope? Scientific fit rests on a substantive contribution to understanding evolutionary processes, patterns or concepts, or to the methods, resources and applications used to study them. The aims and scope page sets this out in full.
Does the evidence carry the claim? This is assessed in relation to the methods used and the claims made. Scope eligibility and the quality of the evidence are assessed separately, and both are weighed alongside the criteria below.
Decision criteria
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Peer review and editorial independence
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts. Reviewers assess methodology, the quality and handling of the data, the reporting, and whether the interpretation is supported by what was found.
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Authors who want double-blind review prepare an anonymized manuscript file as set out in the instructions for authors, and editors ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
Editorial decisions are independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial roles. An editor or reviewer who submits work to the journal has it handled independently of them.
- Screening
- Every submission, before review
- External review
- Normally at least two independent subject-matter experts
- Model
- Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
- Reviewer guidance
- Reviewer guidelines
- Editor guidance
- Editor guidelines
Authorship, conflicts and recusal
- Authorship criteria
- Authorship requires a substantial contribution to the work, accountability for it, and approval of the submitted version by every author.
- Conflict disclosure
- Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest must be disclosed by authors, and funding sources named.
- Editorial recusal
- Editors recuse themselves when a conflict is present, and the manuscript is handled by another editor independently.
- Data ownership and permissions
- Authors must hold the permissions needed to use and share the data, images and material they submit.
Research ethics
Work involving people, animals, protected species or regulated material must comply with the applicable ethical standards, and the manuscript must say so.
- Human and animal research — compliance with the relevant ethics approvals and consent requirements, identified by approving body and reference where one applies.
- Trial registration — Interventional clinical trials must be registered in an accepted public trial registry at or before the first participant provides consent for enrollment. The registry name, registration number, and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.
- Specimens and sequences — provenance, collection permits and accession numbers documented so the material can be traced and reused.
- Originality — submissions are screened for plagiarism and prior publication. A similarity report is read in context by an editor; it is not applied as an automatic threshold.
- Preprints — posting a preprint is accepted. Disclose it at submission and cite it appropriately.
Data, code and reporting
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
The journal encourages deposit of sequences, alignments, trees, phenotype data and analysis code in an appropriate public repository, with accession numbers or a persistent identifier cited in the manuscript. Where data cannot be shared openly — for protected species locality data, for example, or personal data — the statement should say so and give the access conditions.
Methods, model assumptions, software versions and analysis pipelines should be reported so the analysis can be repeated. Specialist reporting requirements apply to the methods a study actually uses, and are set out in the instructions for authors.
Required in every empirical manuscript
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement.
Artificial intelligence and automated tools
Authors should disclose AI-assisted analysis or writing tools and describe how the outputs were validated. Automated outputs must be checked for accuracy, bias and reproducibility.
An AI tool cannot be an author: authorship requires accountability for the work, which a tool cannot hold. Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Corrections, retractions and concerns
The published record is corrected in the open, and each correction is linked to the article it concerns so a reader always reaches the current version.
The journal follows COPE guidance when investigating a concern about a published article, and the outcome is published as a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction as the case requires. Where data or code is updated, the change is versioned rather than substituted silently.
Concerns about a published article, and appeals against an editorial decision, are raised with the editorial office at [email protected], quoting the manuscript or article identifier and the grounds. An appeal is not handled by the editor whose decision is being questioned.
- Correction
- A factual or metadata error that does not affect the conclusions
- Expression of concern
- An unresolved question about the record, published while it is examined
- Retraction
- A finding serious enough that the article should no longer be relied on
- Versioning
- Updated data or code, recorded as a new version
Withdrawing a manuscript
The publisher-wide withdrawal policy, in full. The same terms are set out on the article processing charges page.
- Authors should contact the editorial office promptly and wait for written confirmation before submitting the work elsewhere.
- Manuscripts withdrawn within 3 days of submission are not subject to a withdrawal charge.
- Manuscripts withdrawn more than 3 days after submission incur a withdrawal charge equal to 30% of the journal's APC.
- Authors must receive official withdrawal confirmation before submitting the manuscript to another journal.
Confidentiality, rights and charges
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are confidential to the editors and reviewers handling them until publication.
Personal data
Handled under the publisher privacy statement.
License and rights
CC BY 4.0; authors retain copyright, as set out on the copyright and license page.
Charges
An article processing charge applies after acceptance; the amounts are on the charges page.
Asking about a policy
The editorial office answers questions about how a policy applies to a particular manuscript, before or after submission.
Digital preservation
This journal’s content is committed to Portico, a not-for-profit digital-preservation archive run by ITHAKA (the organization behind JSTOR). As articles are deposited they enter Portico’s permanent archive, so the scholarly record stays available for the long term — even if a title one day ceases to publish. Read our preservation policy.