Allow content?
This content requires cookies. To view content please update your cookie preferences.
This journal uses a single-anonymized model of peer review. The author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author.
Apidologie’s peer review process is outlined as follows:
- All manuscripts are intially examined by Apidologie scientific editors for their relevance to the journal’s scope. Those which do not match the scope of Apidologie or are of insufficient general interest are sent promptly to their authors
- Other manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two experts chosen by the assigned Handling Editor
- Reviewers are invited to present their comments and suggestions within four weeks of accessing the manuscript
- Reviewers’ comments are sent to the authors without their names to remain anonymous
- The decision of the Handling Editor is based on the reviewers’ reports and the editorial board’s advice
When submitting a revised manuscript, please provide a detailed response to the reviewers' and editor's comments, explaining how each point has been addressed. If you choose not to implement a suggestion, please provide a clear justification.
We ask that revised manuscripts be submitted within two months of the editorial decision. Revisions received after this period may be treated as new submissions. Depending on the nature of the revisions, the Handling Editor may send the manuscript for a further round of peer review.