Forestry Studies

Forestry Studies | Metsanduslikud Uurimused relies on the expertise of independent reviewers to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in supporting fair editorial decisions and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. The review should help the Editors reach an informed editorial decision and assist the authors in improving the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their work.

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript:

• falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
• presents original research, valuable confirmation of existing knowledge, or a relevant scholarly contribution;
• is scientifically sound and methodologically appropriate;
• is clearly and concisely written;
• has an adequate and informative title;
• includes a clear and appropriate abstract;
• presents a well-defined research problem or objective;
• uses appropriate materials, methods, study design, and statistical analyses;
• presents results clearly and without unnecessary duplication;
• includes tables and figures that are easy to read and understand;
• draws conclusions that are supported by the data;
• discusses relevant literature adequately;
• complies with ethical and scholarly publishing standards.

Review Criteria

When preparing their review, reviewers should consider the relevance and originality of the manuscript, the scientific quality and methodology, presentation and structure, clarity of results, tables and figures, interpretation of findings, discussion, conclusions, and language quality.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The recommendation should be supported by clear comments. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions required for scientific validity and optional suggestions intended to improve presentation or clarity. The final decision regarding publication rests with the Editors.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers should provide comments that are clear, specific, constructive, and sufficiently detailed to help authors revise the manuscript and to assist the Editors in making a decision. Where appropriate, reviewers should refer to specific sections, pages, paragraphs, tables, figures, or lines in the manuscript. Comments intended for authors should be written in a professional and respectful tone. Confidential comments to the Editors may be provided separately where necessary.

Timelines

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they have the necessary expertise and can complete the review within the requested timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should inform the Editors as soon as possible. If a reviewer is unable to review the manuscript, they may suggest alternative qualified reviewers, provided that there is no conflict of interest.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related materials received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents to anyone without prior permission from the Editors. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or research advantage. Reviewers should not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. Reviewers should decline the invitation if a conflict could affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality. If a potential conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, the reviewer should inform the Editors immediately.

Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews should be objective, fair, and based on scholarly assessment of the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable. Reviewers should provide reasoned arguments to support their comments and recommendations. They should avoid unsupported statements, inappropriate language, or comments influenced by personal bias.

Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should inform the Editors if they identify or suspect ethical concerns, including plagiarism or text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, unethical research practices, missing approvals or permits, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship or contributorship, or substantial overlap with other published or submitted work. Reviewers should not investigate suspected misconduct independently or contact third parties without editorial approval.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process when using digital tools. Manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary materials, unpublished data, or reviewer reports must not be uploaded to artificial intelligence tools, large language models, or third-party platforms unless this is explicitly permitted by the journal and complies with confidentiality, copyright, and data protection requirements. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their review reports.

Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate a revised manuscript. In such cases, they should assess whether the authors have responded adequately to reviewer and editorial comments and whether the revised manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial standards. Reviewers may indicate whether they are willing to review the manuscript again after revision.

Reviewer Anonymity

Forestry Studies | Metsanduslikud Uurimused uses a double-anonymous peer review process. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in comments intended for authors. If reviewers annotate manuscript files, they should ensure that file properties, tracked changes, or comments do not reveal their identity.

Reviewer Information

Reviewer names, contact details, affiliations, and review reports are used only for editorial purposes and are treated as confidential. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

COPE Guidance

Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including confidentiality, impartiality, timely review, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and responsible handling of ethical concerns.

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing