Focus and Scope
Zoosymposia is a rapid series for peer-reviewed collected papers (reviews or original papers) on special topics/themes in zoology. It is a sister series of Zootaxa and is designed to allow volumes of collected papers covering a wide range of topics (e.g. ecology, conservation ...) outside the scope of Zootaxa. Each volume should compose a special topic/theme or the result of a symposium and is edited by its own guest editors, who are responsible for individual manuscript peer review. Accepted volumes are published within two months after the final files are received. Each volume is separately issued and bound, and is published both online and in print at the same time. ISBNs are assigned to each title.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts within the scope of Zoosymposia will be reviewed by at least two peers assigned by one of our editors. Reviewers are anynymous and they have the option to sign their reviews. Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers.
Author ethics. The authors must ensure that the submission is an original one that has not been published before and is also not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Duplicated submission is not permitted and will result in the rejection of the manuscript. It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that the manuscript contains no unlawful statements and does not violate the rights of any third parties. If the authors need to reproduce figures, tables, or other copyright materials that were previously published, they must obtain the necessary permission from the copyright holder(s) and provide proper attribution as required by the copyright holder(s). For manuscripts by multiple authors, each listed author must have contributed significantly to the manuscript and all authors must agree to the final submitted version.
Plagiarism in any form (including self-plagiarism) is a violation of copyright law. A submission will be automatically rejected when our editors and reviewers detect any signs of plagiarism: copying text(s), figure(s), or any other copyright materials without proper attribution or permission by the copyright holder(s).
Reviewer ethics. The peer-review process is essential for safeguarding the quality and scientific integrity of academic publications. It must be fair and free from any personal attacks or conflict of interest. Potential reviewers may be suggested by authors who may also indicate reviewers who have conflict of interests. Invited reviewers who have a conflict of interest with any authors should inform the editor and decline to review the manuscript. It is our policy to make reviewers anonymous, although we respect reviewers if they prefer to remove anonymity. Reviewers must keep unpublished information in the manuscripts in strict confidence before publication.
Editor ethics. The Editor serves as an arbiter in the discourse between reviewers and authors. He/she must remain neutral in any debate between authors and reviewers. The editor should enforce ethical standards of behaviour in the review and response process. The acceptance of manuscripts should be based on merits alone. Editors must keep unpublished information in the manuscripts in strict confidence before publication. When an editor is an author or a co-author of submission, he/she must ask another editor to manage the peer review of his/her manuscript. Editors should also avoid editing submissions from other authors who have conflicts of interest.
Special code of ethics. For manuscripts dealing with zoological nomenclature, we recommend that the authors, reviewers and editors follow the Code of Ethics in Appendix A of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (https://code.iczn.org).
Dealing with unethical behaviour. We endorse the ethics guidelines recommended by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). We are firmly against any form of falsification or fabrication of data and plagiarism (including self-plagiarism without proper attribution) and will treat any breach of ethics standards seriously in accordance with the COPE guidelines.