Current issue: 56(2)

Scopus CiteScore 2021: 2.8
Scopus ranking of open access forestry journals: 8th
PlanS compliant
Silva Fennica 1926-1997
Acta Forestalia Fennica

Reviewer instructions

Conflicting interests

The authors must declare any significant conflict of interest as a part of the manuscript submission process. Conflict of interest may be formed e.g., by receiving funding from a company, products of which are used in the research. Normally, declared conflicts of interest will not impede the review process of the manuscript but reviewers will be informed on them and they are expected to evaluate the potential effects of the conflict on the contents of the manuscript.

Silva Fennica follows the single-blind review process. Reviewers known to cooperate with the authors (e.g., several recent common publications) are not invited to review a manuscript. However, it is impossible to find out all collaborations. Thus, if a reviewer is invited to review a manuscript of colleagues with whom they have active collaboration, they should decline the review invitation.

A Subject Editor must follow the same principles as reviewers when the Editor-in-Chief assigns a manuscript to them for review process. Subject Editors have the responsibility to decline overseeing the review process of the manuscripts of close collaborators or in the case of another type of conflict of interest. In these cases, the review process will be managed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor.

Review guidelines

Silva Fennica’s review procedure is pre-publication, single blind, editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors, peer reviews are not published, review is facilitated by the journal and the reviews are owned by the authors of the reviews. However, you may allow disclosing your identity by adding your name to the end of the “Comments to the authors” box. We will facilitate your communication with the authors if you wish. Do not contact the authors directly.The review process of Silva Fennica is handled by a Subject Editor. They are your principal contact with the journal, unless in specific cases explained below.

You may upload files with your review typically, an annotated manuscript file. If you do not want your identity to be revealed for authors, which is our default, please, anonymise your uploaded file(s).

We encourage you the read the “COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers” published by the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow the advice that is applicable to your review. Parts of the following instructions are borrowed from the COPE Guidelines.

Read the manuscript and supplementary data files. Get back to us if anything is not clear and request any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly. Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, without first obtaining permission from the Subject Editor. It is important that you remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. Notify the Subject Editor as soon as possible, if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript for not delaying unduly the review process.

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics inform the journal. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the Subject Editor and the Editor-in-Chief directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. Check Silva Fennica’s policies on Allegations of misconduct.

Use the review form as the guide for evaluating the contents of a manuscript. We emphasise the importance of the first question: A contribution should be novel or a significant replication study as specified in the Instructions for Authors, and have broad and international interest for being published in Silva Fennica. You should always reason your opinion about this point in your comments to authors.

When making detailed comments or suggestions, you should refer to the line, equation, table, or figure numbers. All criteria mentioned in the review form are important to consider and comment for improving a manuscript.

Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, you should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not your job to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which, if any, suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

The manuscript is evaluated on the scale:

  • Accept submission: Only minor editorial revisions may be recommended.
  • Minor revisions: Minor revisions that can be evaluated by an Editor without a new peer-review.
  • Major revisions: Major revisions that may require a new peer-review.
  • Reject submission

Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.
Log in
If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.
Contents alert
Sign up to receive alerts of new content
Your selected articles