Manuscripts submitted to eco.mont initially undergo an access review by the editor which is not a full scientific review. It aims to identify and exclude manuscripts with clear deficiencies based on the primary evaluation criteria:
Relevance and scope: The manuscript adresses topics within the aims and scope of eco.mont, e.g. is the study area within a mountain protected area.
Novelty: The manuscript presents novel contributions that meet international standards.
Clarity and precision: No parts of the manuscript require clarification, reduction, addition, combination, or elimination.
Scientific methods: The scientific methods are clearly outlined.
Results and conclusions: The results sufficiently support the interpretations and conclusions.
Traceability: The methods and results are described in a way that allows reproduction by fellow scientists.
Title and abstract: The title accurately reflects the paper’s content, and the abstract provides a clear and concise summary of the work and results.
Clarity for audience: The title and abstract are pertinent and easy to understand for an inter- and transdisciplinary audience.
Mathematical formulae and symbols: Mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units are correctly defined and used, with tables or appendices provided if numerous.
Figures: The size, quality, and readability of each figure are adequate for the type and quantity of data presented.
References: The author properly credits previous work, clearly indicates their own contribution, and provides appropriate, accessible and international references.
Presentation: The overall presentation is well-structured, clear, and easy to understand by an inter- and transdisciplinary audience, with the paper length being appropriate.
Language: The technical language is precise and understandable, and the English is fluent, simple, and easy to read for an inter- and transdisciplinary audience.
Supplementary material: The amount and quality of supplementary material (if any) are appropriate.
