Submissions

Author Guidelines

Instructions for Authors

• Appropriate subjects for contribution to SBC are described in the “aims and scope” section.
• Original Research papers should typically be no longer than 6.000 words but can be up to a maximum of 8000 words (without references).
• Papers that describe new taxa should follow taxonomic procedures described in Winston (1999), a reference which is recommended by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Please refer to Tsang et al. (2016) for more details.

 Article types

Scientific report: This type of paper presents important new research results of broad significance. Reports should include an abstract, an introductory paragraph, figures or tables, conclusions, and references. Materials and Methods can be added to the supplementary files.

Review paper: Review articles will also be considered but after initial contact with the Editor in chief. They should typically be no more than 7000 words and concisely present an area of interest in wildlife ecology and biodiversity. Review articles are not expected to adhere to a strict format, though the title page and abstract should be included as described below. Reviews can be up to 7000 words and include up to 100 references, and 4-6 figures or tables. Reviews do not contain supplementary material. They should describe and synthesize recent developments of interdisciplinary significance and highlight future directions. They include an abstract, an introduction that outlines the main themes, brief subheadings, and an outline of important unresolved questions. Unsolicited offers of Reviews are considered. 

Short communication (or Short note): Short note is a concise paper devoted to the rapid publication of new research works, findings, and new records expected to attract the attention of and have a beneficial impact on researchers working in relevant fields of wildlife and biodiversity. Such papers should be up to 2000 words and contain no more than 20 references and 3 display items (figures and/or tables). The abstract should not exceed 75 words. Short notes should normally follow the general format described below, but results and discussion sections should be combined. 

 Original Research papers

Manuscripts should be arranged in the following order:

It should be noted that Figures and Tables should be placed into relevant sections within the text. However, the journal keeps the right to re-organize the layout of the accepted paper.

1. Title
2. Author(s), complete name(s) of institution(s) (affiliation address)
3. Running title
4. Abstract
5. Keywords
6. Introduction
7. Material and Methods
8. Results
9. Discussion
10. Acknowledgments
11. References

Manuscript structure:

Text preparation

• Non-English speakers are strongly encouraged to have their manuscripts checked by a native speaker before submission.
• Manuscripts must be prepared in 12-point font size (Times New Roman), line numbered, double-spaced throughout, with a left-hand margin of 4 cm and a right-hand margin of 2cm in A4.

Title

• Concise and informative.
• Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems.
• Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.

Author names and affiliations

• Please clearly indicate the given name(s) and family name(s) of each author and check that all names are accurately spelled. Present the authors' affiliation addresses (where the actual work was done) below the names.
• Indicate all affiliations with a lowercase superscript letter immediately after the author's name and in front of the appropriate address.
• Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the country name and, if available, the e-mail address of each author.

Corresponding author

• Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication, also post-publication.
• Ensure that the e-mail address is given and that contact details are kept up to date by the corresponding author.

  Abstract

• Should succinctly and clearly describe the major findings reported in the manuscript.
• Avoid specialized terms and use only the usual acronyms.
• All others must be spelled out on the first reference.
• The abstract must not exceed 300 words.

Keywords 

• at least three keywords that should not be repeated in the Title.

Introduction

• Presents the purpose of the study and its relationship to earlier work in the field.
• The introduction should not be an extensive review of the literature and usually is less than one formatted page.

Material and methods

• Presents the locality of the investigation, if any and describes especially new procedures in detail.
• Previously published procedures should be referenced.
• Modifications of previously published procedures should not be given in detail except where necessary to repeat the work.

Results

• Presented in figures, tables, or text.
• Integrating Results and Discussion in one single section can be accepted upon managing editor decision.

Discussion

• Should be concise (usually less than two formatted pages) while focusing on the interpretation of the results; should not repeat information in the “Results” section.

Acknowledgments

• Funding sources should be acknowledged as well as database names and accession codes (if applicable) should be mentioned.
• Brief note(s) of thanks to people who helped with the study or preparation of the paper (optional) can be added. Remember that all those designated as authors must meet all four criteria for authorship. 

References

• The 7^th Edition of APA Citation guidelines should be used. You can use the following guide for reference formatting: please click this link for a detailed explanation regarding the use of references in-text and reference section.
• Please add DOI numbers of the cited references, if possible.
• The reference style has the prepared style in Mendeley software, which is freely available on this link.

BOOKS:

Reference List
1 Author
Smith, J. D. (2009). Research ethics in New Zealand: A student guide. Rata Press.
2 Authors
Smith, J. D., & Khan, V. (2009). Research ethics in New Zealand: A student guide. Rata Press.
3 to 20 Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., & Zhang, H. (2009). Research ethics in New Zealand: A student guide. Rata Press.
21+ Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., Zhang, H., Williams, T., Garcia, J., Sato, Y., Thompson, D., Taylor, F. G., McDonald, L., Laine, C., Arnott, A., Fisher, V., Derryck, W., Young, N., Creswell, I., Greene, P., Walsh, Dubois, T., Wright, B., … Roach, C. (2009). Research ethics in New Zealand: A student guide. Rata Press.
In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Smith (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith, 2009).
2 Authors
According to Smith and Khan (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith & Khan, 2009).
3 to 20 Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).
21+ Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).

EDITED BOOK CHAPTER:

Reference List
1 Author
Smith, J. D. (2009). Trends in discourse analysis. In G. Schwartz & U. N. Owen (Eds.), Readings in qualitative research design (pp. 15–59). Rata Press.
2 Authors
Smith, J. D., & Khan, V. (2009). Trends in discourse analysis. In G. Schwartz & U. N. Owen (Eds.), Readings in qualitative research design (pp. 15–59). Rata Press.
3 to 20 Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., & Zhang, H. (2009). Trends in discourse analysis. In G. Schwartz & U. N. Owen (Eds.), Readings in qualitative research design (pp. 15–59). Rata Press.
21+ Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., Zhang, H., Williams, T., Garcia, J., Sato, Y., Thompson, D., Taylor, F. G., McDonald, L., Laine, C., Arnott, A., Fisher, V., Derryck, W., Young, N., Creswell, I., Greene, P., Walsh, Dubois, T., Wright, B., … Roach, C. (2009). Trends in discourse analysis. In G. Schwartz & U. N. Owen (Eds.), Readings in qualitative research design (pp. 15–59). Rata Press.
In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Smith (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith, 2009).
2 Authors
According to Smith and Khan (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith & Khan, 2009).
3 to 20 Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).
21+ Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).

… was the case (Smith et al., 2009; Alavi et al. 2020; Hosseini et al. 2022).

JOURNAL ARTICLE:

Reference List
1 Author
Smith, J. D. (2009). Māori voices: Approaches to bilingual research. Journal of Academic Methodologies, 38(3), 17–28. * https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.117
* If an online document has a DOI, use it instead of the URL address. Start the DOI link with https:// or http://. Do not end the URL with a full stop as this may affect the functionality of the link.
2 Authors
Smith, J. D., & Khan, V. (2009). Māori voices: Approaches to bilingual research. Journal of Academic Methodologies, 38(3), 17–28.
3 to 20 Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., & Zhang, H. (2009). Māori voices: Approaches to bilingual research. Journal of Academic Methodologies, 38(3), 17–28.
21+ Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., Zhang, H., Williams, T., Garcia, J., Sato, Y., Thompson, D., Taylor, F. G., McDonald, L., Laine, C., Arnott, A., Fisher, V., Derryck, W., Young, N., Creswell, I., Greene, P., Walsh, Dubois, T., Wright, B., … Roach, C. (2009). Māori voices: Approaches to bilingual research. Journal of Academic Methodologies, 38(3), 17–28.
In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Smith (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith, 2009).
2 Authors
According to Smith and Khan (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith & Khan, 2009).
3 to 20 Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).
21+ Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).

WEB PAGE:

Reference List
1 Author
Smith, J. D. (2009). Kindergartens and childcare centres in New Zealand. Ministry of Education. http://www.example.com/thepage.htm
2 Authors
Smith, J. D., & Khan, V. (2009). Kindergartens and childcare centres in New Zealand. Ministry of Education. http://www.example.com/thepage.htm
3 to 20 Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., & Zhang, H. (2009). Kindergartens and childcare centres in New Zealand. Ministry of Education. http://www.example.com/thepage.htm
21+ Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., Zhang, H., Williams, T., Garcia, J., Sato, Y., Thompson, D., Taylor, F. G., McDonald, L., Laine, C., Arnott, A., Fisher, V., Derryck, W., Young, N., Creswell, I., Greene, P., Walsh, Dubois, T., Wright, B., … Roach, C. (2009). Kindergartens and childcare centres in New Zealand. Ministry of Education. http://www.example.com/thepage.htm

In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Smith (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith, 2009).
2 Authors
According to Smith and Khan (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith & Khan, 2009).
3 to 20 Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).
21+ Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009; Alavi et al. 2020; Hosseini et al. 2022).

REPORT

Reference List
1 Author
Smith, J. D. (2009). National employment predictions and recommendations (Report No. 122). Rata Press.
2 Authors
Smith, J. D., & Khan, V. (2009). National employment predictions and recommendations (Report No. 122). Rata Press.
3 to 20 Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., & Zhang, H. (2009). National employment predictions and recommendations (Report No. 122). Rata Press.
21+ Authors
Smith, J. D., Khan, V., Zhang, H., Williams, T., Garcia, J., Sato, Y., Thompson, D., Taylor, F. G., McDonald, L., Laine, C., Arnott, A., Fisher, V., Derryck, W., Young, N., Creswell, I., Greene, P., Walsh, Dubois, T., Wright, B., … Roach, C. (2009). National employment predictions and recommendations (Report No. 122). Rata Press.
In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Smith (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith, 2009).
2 Authors
According to Smith and Khan (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith & Khan, 2009).
3 to 20 Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009).
21+ Authors
According to Smith et al. (2009), the best source of …
… was the case (Smith et al., 2009; Alavi et al. 2020; Hosseini et al. 2022).
REPORT
** If a multiple (3+) author citation abbreviated with et al. looks the same as another in-text citation similarly shortened, add enough surnames to make a distinction. e.g., (Smith, Khan, et al., 1998) to distinguish from (Smith, Khan, Zhang, et al., 1998).

(Retrieved from Massey University due to the American Psychological Association - Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2020)

Figures and image:

should be labeled sequentially, numbered, and cited in the text. Figure legends should be brief, specific and appear in its right position in the manuscript file. Refer to (and cite) figures and tables specifically in the text of the paper or in a parenthesis (Table x, Fig. X). If a table or figure has been published before, the authors must obtain written permission to reproduce the material in both print and electronic formats from the copyright owner and submit it with the manuscript.  Do not use three-dimensional histograms when the addition of the third dimension gives no extra information. Scale markers should be used in images taken on a microscope and indicate the type of stain used. Please note that red and green must not be used together in a figure as some readers cannot perceive the difference between them. Figures and tables legend should be center aligned using time new Romans 11 font.

Overview of the submission and review process

The following is a brief overview of the submission and review process for papers, along with links to the relevant instructions.

1. Prepare manuscript text in Microsoft Word or open office.
2. Prepare figures as publication-quality TIFF, JPG or EPS files (minimum resolution of 300 dpi) as embedded into the manuscript with their captions.
3. Prepare tables, not as image files, and embedded into the manuscript with their captions.
4. Prepare any supplemental data files.
5. Prepare a cover letter as described.
6. Submit the manuscript file, any supplemental data files, and the cover letter at the submission site
7. Reviewers will recommend whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised or declined.
8. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, it will be published with an abstract as a Paper in Press within one week of acceptance.
9. Manuscripts may be declined without a full review if they are clearly inconsistent with these guidelines.
10. Submitted manuscripts must describe original research not previously published and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
11. Manuscripts must be written in American or British English, although papers may be submitted by authors from any country.

                                                                    Re-submissions

• Revised and submitted manuscripts must be accompanied by a report that includes a detailed point-by-point listing of how each of the reviewers’ comments has been addressed and describes any other changes made to the manuscript.
• Authors are invited to upload a copy of the original manuscript marked with changes using Word with Track Changes, highlighting, or colored text to indicate changes and facilitate the evaluation of the revisions.

Editorial policy

Authorship criteria

Adapted from the recommendation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Authorship credit should be based on the following:

1. Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Ethics Policy

The submission of a manuscript having multiple authors constitutes a representation that all listed authors concur with the submission and approved the final version. The authors are expected to present experimental results accurately. Evidence or allegations of violations of the standard norms for publishing original research — such as publication without approval of all authors, plagiarism, republication of data used previously without acknowledgment, and inappropriate image manipulation — will be investigated. In case of any potential hazards to the animals such as invasive sampling and so on, we require that authors submitting a paper provide the date, approval number or code, and or name of the approving committee on research work submitted to the JWB.

License feature:

SBC applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license to the works we publish. This license was developed to facilitate open access – namely, free immediate access to, and unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. Based on this license, others can distribute the article, create abstracts, extracts, revised versions, adaptations, or make translations, without permission from the author while crediting the author(s), and any damage to the author's honor or reputation.

Editorial process

SBC aims to provide authors with constructive, fair, and timely reviews. The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Reviewing Editors determine the suitability of manuscripts for publication. After receipt of a manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief, it is sent to an Associate Editor, who usually assigns it to two members of the Editorial Board for review. The reviewing editors then make a recommendation for acceptance, revision or declination based upon the scientific merit and technical quality of the studies reported. External referees are consulted when additional expertise is required. Prospective authors are encouraged to indicate editorial board members and external referees with the expertise needed to evaluate the manuscript.

All Board members and referees that review a manuscript remain unknown to the authors. Submitted manuscripts are treated as privileged information by the editors and referees, who are instructed to exclude themselves from the review of any manuscript that might involve a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. Manuscripts may be declined without a full review if they are clearly inconsistent with the Editorial Guidelines. This policy is meant to expedite re-submission to a more appropriate journal.