1. Plagiarism and Originality Policy

The Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS) expects that the submitted manuscript is an original work by the authors, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration for publication in another journal. JWLS strictly prohibits duplicate submissions, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication.

JWLS is a participant in Similarity Check by CrossRef. Therefore, all the submissions, irrespective of the peer-review outcome, are submitted to ‘iThenticate’ for an initial plagiarism check and the published articles are contributed to iThenticate data.

JWLS adheres to the University Grant Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018 to uphold academic integrity and prevent plagiarism. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15% may be subject to further scrutiny or rejection unless authors provide valid justification. See the Author Guidelines for more details.

2. Policy on the Use of Generative AI

The Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS) supports the ethical and responsible use of generative AI tools in research and publishing. AI tools may be used by authors to enhance language and readability with proper disclosure. However, AI tools must not be used to conceptualise, AI-led analyses, develop figures and images, or draw inferences. AI cannot be listed as an author, as authorship requires accountability, which only humans can assume. Authors must comply with their institutional and national AI policies. See specific policies for authors in the Author Guidelines.

Editors and reviewers must not use generative AI to write or refine their comments, nor should they upload review manuscripts to AI tools, as this violates author privacy and intellectual property rights. See more details in the guidelines for editors and reviewers in the Peer Review Process section below.

JWLS has adapted its policies based on guidelines from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Position on Authorship and AI Tools, World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications, and Elsevier Generative AI policies for journals.

3. Open Access Policy

JWLS follows the Diamond Open Access model, as defined by cOAlition S, ensuring that all published articles are immediately and freely available for reading, downloading, and sharing. This model eliminates paywalls and subscription fees, making research accessible to a global audience and promoting equitable access to knowledge. Diamond Open Access also enhances the visibility and impact of research by increasing discoverability and fostering wider collaboration and citations.

By removing financial barriers for authors and readers, Diamond Open Access accelerates scientific progress and ensures that research findings contribute broadly to wildlife conservation and ecological sciences.

As a member of CrossRef, the journal also supports the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) and Initiative for Open Abstracts (I4OA) and complies with their standards.

4. Copyright Policy

Authors retain the copyright of published articles under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Cover images and certain materials may have restricted copyright requiring permission. More details are on the Author Guidelines page.

5. Repository Policy

JWLS allows authors to deposit all versions of their manuscripts—including the Submitted Version, Accepted Version (Author Accepted Manuscript), and Published Version (Version of Record)—on personal websites, personal archives, institutional repositories, non-commercial preprint servers, and scholarly commons and collaboration networks of their choice, without any embargo period. This policy ensures immediate and widespread dissemination of research findings, increasing visibility, accessibility, and impact within the academic and conservation communities.

The versions of the manuscript are defined as:

1.  Submitted Version: The original manuscript as submitted by the author before peer review.
2. Accepted Version (Author Accepted Manuscript): The accepted manuscript after peer review, incorporating all revisions, but prior to copyediting and the publisher’s formatting.
3. Published Version (Version of Record): The final formatted version as it appears in the Journal of Wildlife Science.

Authors must acknowledge the Journal of Wildlife Science as the original source by including the citation and DOI when depositing their work.

This repository policy adheres to DOAJ guidelines (https://doaj.org/) and aligns with the repository policies outlined by Sherpa Romeo (now Jisc’s open policy), Diadorim, Dulcinea, and Mir@bel, although JWLS is not listed on these platforms.

6. Ethical Policies for Research and Publication

Research integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing are central to JWLS. The authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any conflict of interest to maintain transparency. Authors must adhere to research ethics, obtain necessary approvals, and maintain data integrity with proper storage, archiving, and sharing. (see Author Guidelines for more details).

JWLS applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure fair and unbiased evaluations, and editors are responsible for ethical manuscript handling. Editors and reviewers should follow the ethical guidelines of the journal to ensure credibility and trust in published research (See sections on Ethical Guidelines for Editors and Reviewers).

The publication process and editorial decisions at JWLS are independently managed without interference from the publisher (Wildlife Institute of India), except in matters related to handling ethical concerns and disputes.

Ethical policies at JWLS are guided by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (a joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA) and Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications by Council of Science Editors (CSE).

7. Publication and Peer Review Process

The Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS) follows a double-blind, confidential peer-review process to ensure rigorous, unbiased evaluations of submitted manuscripts. Editors and reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality and must not disclose manuscript details outside the review process.

The following outlines the step-by-step process followed at JWLS, from manuscript submission to final publication (Figure 1):

Submission: Authors submit their manuscripts online via JWLS’s Editorial Manager platform. Detailed submission guidelines are available on the Author Guidelines page. Once submitted, the editorial staff conducts an initial technical check to verify adherence to submission requirements. If the manuscript does not meet the necessary standards, it is returned to the authors for corrections before proceeding further.

Editorial Review: After clearing the technical check, the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, and Associate Editors assess the manuscript’s scope, relevance, and ethical considerations. The editorial board may desk reject manuscripts that do not fit the journal’s scope or meet its quality standards. If deemed suitable for peer review or needing additional comments for an early decision, the manuscript is assigned to an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, who will oversee the review process independently.

Peer Review: For manuscripts that pass the editorial assessment, the Academic Editor selects the reviewers based on their expertise in the subject matter and invites them to evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, and significance. Research Articles, Review Articles, Monographs, Methods Papers, and Short Communications require evaluation by at least two independent external reviewers. Short-form articles such as Natural History Notes, Short Notes, Academic Practices in Wildlife Science, Letters to the Editor, Replies, and Commentaries require at least one independent external reviewer. If only one external review is received, the handling Academic Editor must conduct an additional detailed review by themselves. If an article is published with deviations from the standard peer-review process, the journal includes an explicit statement in the article detailing these differences.

Decision: Following the completion of peer review, the Academic Editor submits a recommendation for acceptance, minor or major revisions, complete rejection or rejection with the possibility of resubmission. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on the reviewer reports and the Academic Editor’s recommendation. Authors are promptly notified of the decision, and if revisions are required, they are expected to address all reviewer comments and submit a revised manuscript.

Revision and Final Decision: If revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript with a response to reviewers addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts undergo further evaluation before the final decision is made.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the publication process at the Journal of Wildlife Science.

8. Data Archiving and Handling

All articles published in the Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS) are permanent and assigned a DOI for tracking and citation. Currently, all publication data, including articles, supplementary files, and metadata, are archived with JWLS at the Wildlife Institute of India. JWLS is also in the process of aligning its publication process with PubMed Central (PMC) for future integration with its archival system for enhanced long-term accessibility.

Authors must adhere to the journal’s Data Availability Policy, ensuring that supplementary data and codes related to their articles are archived in public repositories or made available upon request. See detailed guidelines on data sharing and archiving in the Author Guidelines.

9. Post-publication Discussions

JWLS encourages constructive post-publication discussions. Readers can submit Letters to the Editor for critiques of published articles, while authors have the opportunity to respond through a Reply. JWLS also engages in discussions via social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and is in the process of integrating with PUBPEER for formal post-publication reviews.

10. Article Updates and Retraction Policy

At the Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS), we are committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. To ensure accuracy and transparency, the following policies guide the handling of article updates and retractions.

10.1 CrossMark Participation

JWLS participates in the CrossMark scheme, a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. CrossMark, from CrossRef, allows readers to determine whether changes have been made after publication. By clicking the ‘CrossMark’ button in the article’s HTML and PDF formats, readers can directly access the latest version of an article and view a record of any updates or corrections.

10.2 Updates and Corrections

Process:

Corrections can be requested by the authors or editors by sending an email to info@jwls.in. Corrections will be reviewed by the editorial team to assess their impact on the work.

Approved corrections will be added to the original article in both HTML and PDF formats with a dated correction notice.

Minor changes, such as minor spelling corrections or formatting changes that don’t affect the metadata, will be made directly to the content without requiring a formal correction notice.

Major updates will be marked in the metadata along with dates and the type of correction. There are 12 defined types of updates accepted in the CrossMark schema: addendum, clarification, correction, corrigendum, erratum, expression of concern, new edition, new version, partial retraction, removal, retraction, and withdrawal.

Transparency:

A statement detailing the nature of the correction and the correction date will be appended to the article.

The corrected version will replace the prior version and carry the same citation. The previous version will remain archived with the Journal of Wildlife Science at the Wildlife Institute of India.

A “Check for Update” CrossMark button will link to the updated version of the article, ensuring readers can easily access the latest version.

10.3 Retractions

Retractions are issued to address major issues that invalidate the study’s findings, such as evidence of misconduct, data fabrication, or serious methodological flaws.

Process:

Retractions can be initiated by the authors, editors, reviewers, readers or institutions by sending an email to info@jwls.in, and will be reviewed by the editorial board.

The authors will be given an opportunity to respond to concerns before finalising the retraction.

Presentation:

Retractions will not remove the article from the journal website.

A top ribbon in the article’s HTML and PDF formats will prominently declare the retraction with a statement explaining the reason and date of the retraction.

10.4 Versioning

JWLS follows a versioning policy to ensure clarity and access to the article’s history:

1. Original Version: The first published version of the article.
2. Corrected Version: The updated version with corrections incorporated.
3. Retracted Version: The original article with a retraction notice appended and a top ribbon declaring the retraction.

10.5 Notification to Readers

Updates and retractions will be communicated to readers via CrossMark metadata updates for tracking changes, and notifications on the journal’s website and relevant indexing platforms.

This policy aligns with guidelines from the COPE and academic best practices to uphold the credibility and trustworthiness of published research. For further inquiries, please contact the editorial office at info@jwls.in.

11. Ethical Policies and Guidelines for Editors

All the editors at the Journal of Wildlife Science (JWLS) are expected to uphold integrity, confidentiality, and fairness in the peer-review and publication process. Editorial responsibility and ethical standards guidelines at JWLS follow the COPE’s Guide to Ethical Editing and the CSE’s recommendations. Editors may refer to these resources and for additional guidance.

Editors must declare any financial, personal, professional, or intellectual conflicts of interest that may arise during the peer-review process. They are encouraged to familiarize themselves with different types of conflicts by referring to COPE’s guidelines on handling conflicts of interest. Editors must recuse themselves from handling any submission in which they have a direct or indirect interest. They must not be involved in editorial decisions on manuscripts they have authored, those written by their family members, students, close colleagues or collaborators, or those related to businesses, stocks, products or services in which they have a vested interest.

While JWLS has no objection to editors holding editorial positions at other journals, they must ensure confidentiality and should not compromise the interests of JWLS. JWLS respects editorial independence, therefore manuscript evaluation and decision by the handling editor is independent and free from any influence by authors, reviewers, other editors, or the publisher.

Research articles should generally be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and when necessary, the editor should seek additional expert opinions or conduct their own detailed review. Editors are responsible for independently selecting qualified reviewers with suitable expertise in the subject area while ensuring appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The editorial board or office may also suggest additional reviewers if required. Best practices must be followed to prevent fraudulent peer review. Editors should also review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and self-citation suggestions made by reviewers to minimise bias.

Manuscripts must be evaluated solely based on intellectual content, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political views of the authors. Editors or reviewers must not request additional references unless they are genuinely required for scholarly reasons, and authors should not be compelled to include references for manuscript acceptance.

Confidentiality is a fundamental responsibility of editors. They must protect all submitted materials and communications with reviewers, ensuring that unpublished data, ideas, or privileged information obtained through peer review are not misused for personal gain. Editors must not use any part of a submitted manuscript in their own research without the explicit written consent of the author.  Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and must not upload them—or any portion thereof—into generative AI tools. The use of AI tools must not compromise confidentiality, integrity, or ethical responsibilities in manuscript handling. Refer to the section on Policy on the Use of Generative AI for more details.

Each editor is typically assigned one manuscript at a time unless no other editor with relevant expertise is available. Editors are invited to handle manuscripts based on their subject expertise, and they must promptly accept or decline assignments within a week to prevent delays. Once accepted, editors must assign reviewers as soon as possible, adhering to JWLS’s preferred review timelines—15 days for the first review and 10 days for subsequent reviews. If reviewers fail to respond within one week, editors must send reminders and invite additional reviewers. The authors must be allowed 10 days to one month time to revise their manuscript depending on the work required to revise. Once all reviews are received, editors must submit their decision within three days. Any delays due to prior commitments or unforeseen circumstances must be communicated to the editorial office in a timely manner. JWLS provides CrossRef Similarity Check reports through its Editorial Manager portal, allowing editors to assess plagiarism levels in submitted manuscripts. For queries related to editorial handling, editors may contact the Assistant Managing Editor at info@jwls.in.

Finally, editors must familiarise themselves with JWLS’s publication and ethics policies, and guidelines for the authors, reviewers and editors, ensuring that authors and reviewers comply with these policies and guidelines. Their role is to uphold the integrity of the journal, fostering a fair, ethical, and transparent peer-review and publication process.

12. Ethical Policies and Guidelines for Reviewers

JWLS values the dedication of reviewers to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of academic publishing. Ethical peer review practices ensure that only scientifically rigorous and ethically sound research is published. The JWLS guidelines for reviewers are developed based on COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, PMC Guidelines, and CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. The reviewer may refer to these guidelines for additional resources.

12.1 Confidentiality and Integrity in Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers should not disclose, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal advantage or in general. Unpublished data, ideas, or privileged information obtained through peer review must not be misused in any form, including in the reviewer’s own research. If a reviewer involves a student or colleague in the review process, they must provide full disclosure of the contributor’s identity and role in comments to editor.

Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may compromise author confidentiality and proprietary rights. Reviewers also must not use AI tools to generate, summarise, or enhance their peer review reports, even if the intent is to improve language clarity. Peer review reports must be entirely the reviewer’s own intellectual work. See further details in the Policy on the Use of Generative AI section.

12.2 Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should declare any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. This includes competing academic interests or relationships that may influence their judgment. If a potential conflict is identified, reviewers must notify the editor immediately and, if necessary, decline the review. Reviewers are encouraged to refer to COPE’s guidelines on handling conflicts of interest for further clarification.

Reviewers should remain objective and constructive in their critique, ensuring that their feedback is clear, specific, and professional. They should evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the field, avoiding bias related to the author’s affiliations, nationality, gender, ethnicity, or personal views. If ethical concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data integrity, or research misconduct, reviewers must immediately alert the handling editor or editorial office.

12.3 Timeliness in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly, preferably within a week, to invitations to review by accepting or declining it. The initial invitation email includes the title and abstract, and even if the reviewer declines, they must maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to recommend alternative qualified reviewers if they are unable to conduct the review. Once accepted, reviews should be completed within 15 days for the first review and 10 days for subsequent revisions to maintain efficient publication timelines. If additional time is required due to other commitments, reviewers may request an extension from the editor.

12.4 Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

Reviewer reports are structured into two sections- Comments to the Authors and Comments to the Editor. Reviewers also must submit a clear recommendation to accept, reject, major revision or minor revision. The reviews should be submitted via the Editorial Manager portal of JWLS. Alternatively, if submitting via email, the manuscript reference number and title must be mentioned. Editors, including the Editor-in-Chief, may edit reviewer comments for tone, language, and professionalism while ensuring that the substantive critique remains unchanged.

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript’s overall research quality, ensuring that the hypotheses and objectives are well-defined, the methodology is rigorous, and the conclusions are supported by data. They should also assess the depth of the discussion, clarity of writing, relevance of references, and presentation of the result outputs. Specific comments should carry line and page numbers for easy reference. Reviews should avoid requiring unnecessary references, especially self-citations, unless they are essential for scholarly reasons. If supplementary data, codes, or procedures are included, reviewers should assess their clarity, accuracy, and reproducibility. For revised manuscripts, a tracked-changes file is required from the author as a supplementary file to facilitate reviewers to find the changes made by the authors.

Reviewers may use the following questionnaire (adopted from PMC guidelines) to evaluate a manuscript: