Mycotaxon 2016Expert peer review instructions & form—160104 version

Mycotaxonexpert reviewer guidelines for
annotated species distribution lists (mycobiotas)

Thank you for agreeing to assist the authors in preparing their annotated species distribution list. As Mycotaxonno longerfully reviewsmycobiotasposted on your assistance is of the highest importance.

Pleaseedit the grammar, text formatting, and nomenclature thoroughly as well as evaluate scientific content and esthetics. After carefully considering the proposed manuscript, return a detailed review and your first manuscript revision to the author. We suggest you ask to see a text revision before returning the Mycotaxon expert reviewer weblist comments form on the next page, so that authors will submit final manuscripts that conform to the highest scientific standards. Once you have completed your final review, please add your comments and suggestions to the bottom of the comments form (first removing this page of instructions).

Relabel the form as Yourname_comm and revised manuscript as Yourname_web. Please type the manuscript’s first author surname + country + for Mycotaxon in the Email subject line before sending your review and final manuscript revision to both the corresponding author and Editor-in-Chief. Once three positive reviews (from three different experts) are on file with both authors and Editor-in-Chief, the authors may send the manuscript to the Nomenclature Editor for formal accession and preliminary review. The Editor-in-Chief will formally acknowledge your assistance after the authors submit the manuscript for final editorial review or withdraw it from consideration by Mycotaxon.

Important notes:

• Mycobiotas— Because Mycotaxonpublishes only papers that are primarily taxonomic or nomenclatural in scope, it does not include annotated ecological or distribution species lists in the journal, except to cite title, authors, and abstractsfrom each new list on a volume summary page that links to an open access author-formatted downloadable PDF posted on the Mycotaxon weblistpage.

• TheNomenclature Editor andEditor-in-Chief no longer review posted mycobiotas, and so the authors and their experts must format error-free text on their own. Although there are no formatting requirements for weblists, those that do not meet Mycotaxon scientific and nomenclatural criteria will be rejected by the Editors on first reading.

• Reviewers should only approve concise, well-written manuscripts that arefree of errors.They should ask to examine collections when they feel that identifications are suspect.

• Authorsmay follow either the formatting criteria set forth in the currentAuthor Instructions(without the Mycotaxon banner on the first page) or apply their own styles, provided that the final document is well formatted, orderly, and professional in appearance.

• After receiving three favorable reviews, authors may present their expert-approved final text document to the MycotaxonNomenclature Editor, who will assign a weblist accession number and determine whether the nomenclature follows the International Code of Nomenclature and that the authorities are properly cited. After preliminary approval by the Nomenclature Editor, the authors may submit their document (plus any back-up jpgs as needed) to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval.

As expert reviewer, it is your duty to determine whether

—the title is both concise and informative — clearly stating which taxa and region are the focus of the paper;

—the introductory text is concise and clearly explains topics, methodologies, data, and conclusions;

—all illustrations are instructive and legends (captions) unambiguously explain pictured details;

—nomenclature complies with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (McNeill & al. 2012).

—appropriate standards for taxonomic authorities, literature citation, and collection acronyms are followed; and

—English grammar is properly used and all words are properly spelled.

Do you have questions or doubts about a manuscript?

Contact the Editor-in-Chief (Lorelei Norvell) at
MYCOTAXON2016 expert review form for weblistsreviewer name:X

Dear Reviewer:Please firstremove the instructions page above. Relabel this form [Name_comm.doc] using your surname.Replaceall‘X’ placeholders with text. Below first writethe complete title and author names (in full). For each and every numbered statement, highlight the appropriate response. Place all comments in this file and add extra lines as needed. Save and send the completed form with comments to both and the corresponding author in the same E-mail message. Please remember to type the nameofthefirst authorand ‘mycotaxon expert review’on your E-mail subject line. Thank you! — Lorelei Norvell, Mycotaxon Editor-in-Chief

[Title by Authors]X by X
(Return your final revision to both author/s AND Editor-in-Chief.)

  1. I agreeordo not agree that the paper is suitable in content for posting on theMycotaxon website.
  2. The title is appropriate as submitted. OR I suggest the followingalternative title: X.
  3. I now find the text acceptable. OR I provide additional alternatives for improving the text.
  4. I agreeordo not agreethat taxa cited as “new records” have not been cited elsewhere, either in print or on the Internet.
  5. I agreeordo not agreethat the new records are correctly identified, based on the information provided.
  6. I have orhave notchecked nomenclature against the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
    (At least one expert MUST have checked the nomenclature prior to submission to the Nomenclature Editor.)
  7. I have orhave not checked collection and herbarium abbreviations.
  8. I agree ordo not agreethat authorities agree with IPNI or posted Authors of Fungal Names standards.
  9. I agreeordo not agreethat all text references are cited in the literature cited (and vice versa).
  10. I havechecked all grammar to the best of my ability and doordo notrecommendthatthe authors consult with an English-speaking expertbefore submission.
  11. I doordo not accept all illustrations as esthetically pleasing and useful.
    ORNo illustrations are presented in this paper.
    OR I suggest maps or other illustrations should be added.
  12. I agreeordo not agreethat all tables are well formatted and necessary. ORNo tables are presented.
  13. I haveorhave notmade suggestions for changes that are noted on the returned manuscript.
  14. Irecommend with no, minor,ormajor correctionsorI do notrecommend
    this paper for posting on theMycotaxonweblist page.

Comments (add lines/pages as needed): X

Reviewer's full name for postingXX<—E-mail address required!

Institution &/or address:XDateX, 2016

Three positive expert reviews are required to post on [ Authors must explain on their final submissions form why they do not follow any reviewer suggestion noted above. The Editor-in-Chief must receive comments forms from reviewers before the manuscript will be accessioned by the Nomenclature Editor. Reviewers will be thanked formally by the Editor-in-Chief after she receives the final submission or notification of withdrawal from the authors.