Russian Journal of Biological Invasions

ISSN: 2075-1117 (Print) 2075-1125 (Online)

Description

Russian Journal of Biological Invasions  publishes original scientific papers dealing with biological invasions of alien species in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and covers the following subjects:

  • description of invasion process (theory, modeling, results of observations and experiments): invasion corridors, invasion vectors, invader species adaptations, vulnerability of aboriginal ecosystems;
  • monitoring of invasion process (reports about findings of organisms out of the limits of natural range, propagule pressure assessment, settling dynamics, rates of naturalization);
  • invasion risk assessment;
  • genetic, evolutional, and ecological consequences of biological invasions of alien species;
  • methods, means of hoarding, processing and presentation of applied research data (new developments, modeling, research results, databases) with factual and geoinformation system applications;
  • use of the results of biological invasion research (methods and new basic results) under the study of marine, fresh-water and terrestrial species, populations, communities and ecosystems;
  • control, rational use and eradication of the harmful alien species..

PEER REVIEW

Russian Journal of Biological Invasions is a peer reviewed journal. We use a double blind peer review format. Our team of reviewers includes over 100 reviewers, both internal and external (80%), from 13 countries. The average period from submission to first decision in 2017 was 40 days, and that from first decision to acceptance was 120 days. The rejection rate for submitted manuscripts in 2017 was 25%. The final decision on the acceptance of an article for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation. Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review (i) any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors, (ii) anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation, (ii) any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Browse Volumes & Issues