Writing Rules

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).

  • Note on Taxonomy: Authors describing new taxa should adhere to the taxonomic procedures outlined in Winston (1999) and further details can be found in Tsang et al. (2016).

Types of Submissions

  • Scientific Reports: Present significant new findings with broad relevance. Should include an abstract, introduction, results, figures or tables, conclusions, and references. Supplementary materials for methodology may be submitted separately.

  • Review Articles: These provide a synthesis of current research and future directions in wildlife ecology. Prior consultation with the Editor-in-Chief is required. Reviews should include an abstract and an introduction, followed by sections outlining major themes, unresolved questions, and important developments.

  • Short Communications: These concise papers focus on presenting new findings of high impact in the field. Short communications combine results and discussion into one section and should be accompanied by a brief abstract of no more than 75 words.

  • Original Research papers: These papers present detailed studies with significant new findings and insights. Each manuscript should include an abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions, figures, and references. The recommended length is 6,000 words, with a maximum of 8,000 words, excluding references. Manuscripts should focus on clearly articulating the research questions, methodology, and the relevance of the findings. Supplementary materials, such as detailed data sets or extended methodological details, may be submitted separately for review.

Title

The title should be clear, informative, and avoid abbreviations or formulas. It should facilitate information retrieval and engage a broad audience. 

Author Information

List all authors with full names and institutional affiliations, using superscript letters to indicate corresponding institutions. The corresponding author should be clearly indicated with their full contact details, including an email address.

  • 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

The abstract should be concise, no more than 300 words, summarizing the major findings of the study. Specialized terminology should be minimized and all acronyms must be defined at first use.

Keywords

Authors should include a minimum of three keywords not used in the title to assist with the indexing of the article.

Introduction

The introduction must outline the purpose of the study and its relevance to previous research. Avoid a comprehensive literature review and keep this section under one formatted page.

Material and methods

Detail the study’s location and any new or modified procedures. Established methods should be cited rather than described in full unless significant modifications were made.

Results

Results should be presented in a clear, logical manner through text, figures, or tables. Integration of the Results and Discussion sections is permitted with editorial approval.

Discussion

This section should focus on the interpretation of the findings and their implications, avoiding repetition of the results. It should generally be concise, no longer than three to four formatted pages.

Acknowledgments

Include details on funding sources and any required database accession codes. Optional notes of appreciation for contributors to the study may also be added.

References

Follow the 7th Edition of the APA Citation Guidelines. Include DOI numbers wherever possible. Authors are encouraged to use Mendeley or other reference management software. Examples of various reference types are as follows:

  • Books:

    • Single Author:
      • Brown, A. L. (2015). The ecology of forest wildlife. Greenleaf Publications.
    • Multiple Authors:
      • Roberts, P., & Lee, M. (2018). Advances in climate change studies. Horizon Press.
    • Edited Book:
      • Carter, J. F. (Ed.). (2012). Conservation and biodiversity in the 21st century. Nature Insight Publishing.

    Journal Articles:

    Web Pages:

    Conference Proceedings:

    • Paper from a Conference:
      • Kim, L. (2023). Innovations in wildlife monitoring using AI. In P. Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Technology (pp. 55-68). Ecotech Press.

    Theses and Dissertations:

    • Master's Thesis:
    • Doctoral Dissertation:

    Reports:

    Book Chapters:

    • Chapter in an Edited Book:
      • Richards, K. (2018). Coastal erosion and its long-term effects. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Geological challenges in coastal zones (pp. 101-122). Oceanview Press.

    Datasets:

    • Standalone Dataset:
      • Thompson, G. & Smith, J. (2019). Biodiversity survey dataset from the Amazon rainforest, 2015-2018 [Data set]. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.xyz123

In-text Citation
1 Author
According to Richards (2018), the best source of …
… was the case (Richards, 2018).
2 Authors
According to Thompson and Smith  (2019), the best source of …
… was the case (Thompson & Smith  , 2019).
3 to more Authors
According to Martinez et al. (2021), the best source of …
… was the case (Martinez et al., 2021).

Figures and Tables

  • All figures and tables must be numbered and referenced in the text. They should be embedded within the manuscript, but the journal reserves the right to adjust their placement.
  • Images should be of high quality, with a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. Avoid using three-dimensional graphs unless absolutely necessary.
  • Figures that have been previously published must include proper permissions from the copyright holder.

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.

(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.
  12. Propose three prefered reviewers and include any reviewers that you may want to exclude.

                                                                    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

To qualify for authorship, individuals must make significant intellectual contributions to the work. Specifically, authorship should be based on the following criteria:

  1. Substantial intellectual input: This includes conceptualizing and designing the study, acquiring, or analyzing data, or providing critical interpretations of the data.
  2. Manuscript development: Authorship credit extends to individuals who participate in drafting the manuscript or revising it for substantial intellectual content that enhances the overall scholarly value of the work.
  3. Final approval: Each author must review and approve the final version of the manuscript before submission, ensuring agreement with its content and conclusions.
  4. Accountability: All authors should accept accountability for the integrity and accuracy of the research, ensuring that any questions related to data integrity or potential errors are properly addressed and resolved.

Authors must be able to identify their individual contributions to the work. For collaborative research involving large teams, it is essential to maintain transparency in assigning credit, ensuring those who meet the authorship criteria are recognized appropriately.

Ethics Policy

The submission of a manuscript implies that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and are in agreement with its submission. Ethical conduct in research and publication is paramount, and the journal strictly enforces the following principles:

  • Accurate representation of research: Authors are expected to present experimental and analytical results truthfully. Misrepresentation, falsification, or manipulation of data will be treated as serious ethical violations.
  • Plagiarism and duplicate publication: Reproducing text, data, or images from previously published works without proper acknowledgment, or submitting the same data to more than one journal without disclosure, will not be tolerated.
  • Research ethics compliance: For studies involving humans, animals, or sensitive ecological interventions, it is mandatory that authors provide details of ethical approvals. Manuscripts must include the date, approval code, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board that reviewed the study.

We maintain zero tolerance for unethical practices, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or undeclared conflicts of interest. Should any issues arise regarding the integrity of published work, investigations will be carried out promptly. Retractions or corrections may be issued depending on the findings.

License Features

SBC applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license to all published works. This license ensures open access to the published content and allows for unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are properly credited. Key aspects of this license include:

  • Free and immediate access: Published works can be accessed and read by anyone without charge, supporting knowledge dissemination on a global scale.
  • Reuse and redistribution: Others are permitted to copy, distribute, and reuse the article in various formats, such as creating translations, adaptations, or revised versions. No permission from the author is required, as long as appropriate credit is given, preserving the original context of the work.
  • Protection of reputation: While the CC-BY license promotes content sharing, it also safeguards authors' reputations by prohibiting uses that harm their honor or misrepresent their original contributions.

This open access policy aligns with global initiatives for wider dissemination of research and ensures the visibility and impact of the work.

Editorial Process

SBC is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer review process that upholds the highest standards of scientific integrity. The editorial process is outlined as follows:

  1. Initial submission screening: Upon submission, manuscripts are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to determine their alignment with the journal’s scope and quality standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these standards may be declined without further review, allowing authors to quickly redirect their work to a more suitable venue.

  2. Assignment to Associate Editors: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise, who oversees the review process.

  3. Peer review: The Associate Editor selects at least two reviewers from the journal’s Editorial Board or external experts, ensuring a thorough and unbiased evaluation. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on scientific rigor, technical soundness, originality, and relevance to the field.

  4. Review outcomes: Reviewers make recommendations to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. Authors will receive detailed feedback from the reviewers, highlighting areas for improvement or additional clarification.

  5. Confidentiality and conflict of interest: The identity of reviewers remains confidential to the authors throughout the review process. Additionally, all editorial members and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if they cannot provide an impartial review.

  6. Author-recommended reviewers: Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers, especially experts with relevant knowledge. While the final decision on reviewer selection rests with the journal, these suggestions may expedite the review process.

  7. Timeliness and transparency: SBC strives to provide authors with timely decisions. Clear communication is maintained throughout the process, with status updates on the manuscript’s progress.

This structured and rigorous editorial approach ensures that only high-quality, impactful research is published, contributing to the global body of scientific knowledge.