Submission Guidelines

 

INPAGE MENU

Abridged structure
  • Editorials
  • Checklists
  • Short Communications
  • Essays
  • Original Research Articles
  • Review Articles
  • Scientific Letters
  • Cover Letter
Full structure
  • Original Research Article
  • Review Article
  • Checklist

Overview

The author guidelines include information about the types of articles received for publication and preparing a manuscript for submission. Other relevant information about the journal's policies and the reviewing process can be found under the about section. The compulsory cover letter form part of a submission and is on the first page of the manuscript. It should always be presented in English. See full structure of cover letter below. After the cover letter the manuscript body starts.

 

 

Editorials


Editorials are by invitation only and are intended to provide expert comment on relevant topics within the focus and scope of the journal.

 

Word limit

800 words

References

10 or less

 

Checklists


Checklists aim to provide a platform for publication of long species lists and other similar data that provide particularly important baseline information for research and monitoring. Checklists should be as completely documented as short communications and should include reference to relevant literature and a description of the data collection and other procedures employed.

 

Word limit

3000 words (excluding the unstructured abstract and references)

Unstructured abstract

250 words to cover a Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion

Abstract requirement

a labelled heading, Conservation implications

References

25 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 7 Tables/Figure

Ethical statement

should be included in the manuscript

Compulsory supplementary file

ethical clearance letter/certificate

 

Short Communications


A concise but complete description of a limited investigation that will not be included in a later paper.

 

Word limit

3000 words (excluding the references)

Abstract

n/a

References

25 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 2 Tables/Figure

 

Essays


The essays are short opinion pieces or personal perspectives (not research papers) on any fundamental conservation concept and/or development that highlights recent stimulating research or policy developments. As these are meant to express a personal viewpoint, essays will generally have no more than two authors, or alternatively, multiple authors from a specific research laboratory or consortium. Standard headings are not always appropriate, but the essay should have clear subheadings to provide order to the manuscript.

 

Word limit

2000 words (excluding the structured abstract and references)

Unstructured Abstract

250 words to cover a Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion

Abstract requirement

a labelled heading, Conservation implications

References

20 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 2 Tables/Figure

Ethical statement

should be included in the manuscript

 

Original Research Articles


An original article provides an overview of innovative research in a particular field within or related to the focus and scope of the journal, presented according to a clear and well-structured format.

 

Word limit

7000 words (excluding the unstructured abstract and references)

Unstructured abstract

250 words to cover a Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion

Abstract requirement

a labelled heading, Conservation implications

References

60 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 7 Tables/Figure

Ethical statement

should be included in the manuscript

Compulsory supplementary file

ethical clearance letter/certificate

 

Review Articles


Inform a broad readership about fields in which there have been recent important advances of immense, fundamental importance, and highlight unresolved questions and future directions. Standard headings are not always appropriate, but the review should have clear sub-headings to provide order to the manuscript. Reviews are typically invited; thus, authors are encouraged to contact the editors prior to submission to express their interest or ideas for reviews of a particular topic.

 

Word limit

7000 words (excluding the unstructured abstract and references)

Unstructured abstract

250 words to cover a Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion

Abstract requirement

a labelled heading, Conservation implications

References

80 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 4 Tables/Figure

Ethical statement

should be included in the manuscript

 

Scientific Letters


A discussion on a particular topic, whereby the authors raise their opinion on a particular aspect of conservation or their reaction to a previously published article in Koedoe. This section encourages debate amongst authors and readers on topical issues of national and global importance to the field of conservation science. Letters will be published at the editors’ discretion. In the case of critical letters, the original author will be given an opportunity to provide a short rebuttal which will be published along with the critical letter.

 

Word limit

2000 words (excluding the unstructured abstract and references)

Abstract

n/a

References

10 or less

Tables/Figures

no more than 1 Tables/Figure

 

Cover Letter


The format of the compulsory cover letter forms part of your submission. It is located on the first page of your manuscript and should always be presented in English. You should provide the following elements:

  1. Full title: Specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field, max 95 characters (including spaces).
  2. Tweet for the journal Twitter profile: This will be used on the journal Twitter profile to promote your published article. Max 101 characters (including spaces). If you have a Twitter profile, please provide us your Twitter @ name. We will tag you to the Tweet
  3. Full author details: The title(s), full name(s), position(s), affiliation(s) and contact details (postal address, email, telephone, highest academic degree, Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) and cell phone number) of each author.
  4. Corresponding author: Identify to whom all correspondence should be addressed.
  5. Authors’ contributions: Briefly summarise the nature of the contribution made by each of the authors listed.
  6. Disclaimer: A statement that the views expressed in the submitted article are his or her own and not an official position of the institution or funder.
  7. Source(s) of support: These include grants, equipment, drugs, and/or other support that facilitated conduct of the work described in the article or the writing of the article itself.
  8. Summary: Lastly, a list containing the number of words, pages, tables, figures and/or other supplementary material should accompany the submission.

Anyone that has made a significant contribution to the research and the paper must be listed as an author in your cover letter. Contributions that fall short of meeting the criteria as stipulated in our policy should rather be mentioned in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of the manuscript. Read our authorship guidelines and author contribution statement policies.

 

 

Original Research Article full structure


Title: The article’s full title should contain a maximum of 95 characters (including spaces).

 

Abstract: The abstract, written in English, should be no longer than 250 words and must be written in the past tense. The abstract should give a succinct account of the objectives, methods, results and significance of the matter. The unstructured abstract for an Original Research article should consist of six paragraphs Background, Objectives, Method, Results, Conclusion and Conservation implications. The latter, is the only labelled heading within the abstract.

  • Background: Why do we care about the problem?  State the context and purpose of the study. (What practical, scientific or theoretical gap is your research filling?)
  • Objectives: What problem are you trying to solve? What is the scope of your work (e.g. is it a generalised approach or for a specific situation)? Be careful not to use too much jargon.
  • Method: How did you go about solving or making progress on the problem? State how the study was performed and which statistical tests were used. (What did you actually do to get the results?) Clearly express the basic design of the study; name or briefly describe the basic methodology used without going into excessive detail. Be sure to indicate the key techniques used.
  • Results: What is the answer? Present the main findings (that is, as a result of completing the procedure or study, state what  you have learnt, invented or created). Identify trends, relative change or differences on answers to questions.
  • Conclusion: What are the implications of your answer? Briefly summarise any potential implications. (What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem or gap identified in your motivation?)
  • Conservation implications: What key insights into the research results and its future function should be revealed? Conservation practitioners should carefully consider the resulting management outcomes by identifying the potential results of the proposed research, the conservation implications of the results and whether these implications call for a change in management practices as well as whether such a change is possible.

Do not cite references and do not use abbreviations excessively in the abstract.

 

Introduction: The introduction must contain your argument for the social and scientific value of the study, as well as the aim and objectives:

  • Social value: The first part of the introduction should make a clear and logical argument for the importance or relevance of the study. Your argument should be supported by use of evidence from the literature.
  • Scientific value: The second part of the introduction should make a clear and logical argument for the originality of the study. This should include a summary of what is already known about the research question or specific topic, and should clarify the knowledge gap that this study will address. Your argument should be supported by use of evidence from the literature.
  • Conceptual framework: In some research articles it will also be important to describe the underlying theoretical basis for the research and how these theories are linked together in a conceptual framework. The theoretical evidence used to construct the conceptual framework should be referenced from the literature.
  • Aim and objectives: The introduction should conclude with a clear summary of the aim and objectives of this study.

Research methods and design: This must address the following:

  • Study design: An outline of the type of study design.
  • Setting: A description of the setting for the study; for example, the type of community from which the participants came or the nature of the health system and services in which the study is conducted.
  • Study population and sampling strategy: Describe the study population and any inclusion or exclusion criteria. Describe the intended sample size and your sample size calculation or justification. Describe the sampling strategy used. Describe in practical terms how this was implemented.
  • Intervention (if appropriate): If there were intervention and comparison groups, describe the intervention in detail and what happened to the comparison groups.
  • Data collection: Define the data collection tools that were used and their validity. Describe in practical terms how data were collected and any key issues involved, e.g. language barriers.
  • Data analysis: Describe how data were captured, checked and cleaned. Describe the analysis process, for example, the statistical tests used orsteps followed in qualitative data analysis.
  • Ethical considerations: Approval must have been obtained for all studies from the author's institution or other relevant ethics committee and the institution’s name and permit numbers should be stated here.

Results: Present the results of your study in a logical sequence that addresses the aim and objectives of your study. Use tables and figures as required to present your findings. Use quotations as required to establish your interpretation of qualitative data. All units should conform to the SI convention and be abbreviated accordingly. Metric units and their international symbols are used throughout, as is the decimal point (not the decimal comma).

 

Discussion: The discussion section should address the following four elements:

  • Key findings: Summarise the key findings without reiterating details of the results.
  • Discussion of key findings: Explain how the key findings relate to previous research or to existing knowledge, practice or policy.
  • Strengths and limitations: Describe the strengths and limitations of your methods and what the reader should take into account when interpreting your results.
  • Implications or recommendations: State the implications of your study or recommendations for future research (questions that remain unanswered), policy or practice. Make sure that the recommendations flow directly from your findings.

Conclusion: Provide a brief conclusion that summarises the results and their meaning or significance in relation to each objective of the study.

 

Acknowledgements: Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution. Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Also provide the following, each under their own heading:

  • Competing interests: This section should list specific competing interests associated with any of the authors. If authors declare that no competing interests exist, the article will include a statement to this effect: The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. Read our policy on competing interests.
  • Author contributions:  All authors must meet the criteria for authorship as outlined in the authorship policy and author contribution statement policies.
  • Funding: Provide information on funding if relevant
  • Disclaimer: A statement that the views expressed in the submitted article are his or her own and not an official position of the institution or funder.

References: Authors should provide direct references to original research sources whenever possible. References should not be used by authors, editors, or peer reviewers to promote self-interests. Refer to the journal referencing style downloadable on our Formatting Requirements page.

 

 

Review Article full structure


Title: The article’s full title should contain a maximum of 95 characters (including spaces).

 

Abstract: The abstract should be no longer than 250 words and must be written in the past tense. The abstract should give a concise account of the objectives, methods, results and significance of the matter. The unstructured abstract for an Original Research article should consist of five paragraphs unlabelled Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion. Then there should follow a labelled paragraph, namely Conservation implications.

  • Background: Why do we care about the problem?  State the context and purpose of the study. (What practical, scientific or theoretical gap is your research filling?)
  • Objectives: What problem are you trying to solve? What is the scope of your work (e.g. is it a generalised approach or for a specific situation)? Be careful not to use too much jargon.
  • Method: How did you go about solving or making progress on the problem? State how the study was performed and which statistical tests were used. (What did you actually do to get the results?) Clearly express the basic design of the study; name or briefly describe the basic methodology used without going into excessive detail. Be sure to indicate the key techniques used.
  • Results: What is the answer? Present the main findings (that is, as a result of completing the procedure or study, state what  you have learnt, invented or created). Identify trends, relative change or differences on answers to questions.
  • Conclusion: What are the implications of your answer? Briefly summarise any potential implications. (What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem or gap identified in your motivation?)
  • Conservation implications: Conservation practitioners should carefully consider the resulting management outcomes by identifying the potential results of the proposed research, the conservation implications of the results and whether these implications call for a change in management practices as well as whether such a change is possible. Key insights into the research results and its future function should be revealed.

Introduction: Present an argument for the social and scientific value of your review that is itself supported by the literature. Present the aim and objectives of your literature review.

 

Methods: Although this is not a systematic review (see instructions on original research for this type of article) it is still necessary to outline how you searched for, selected and appraised the literature that you used. Discuss any methodological limitations.

 

Review findings: Present your review of the literature and make use of appropriate sub-headings. Your review should be a critical synthesis of the literature.

 

Implications and recommendations: Discuss the findings of your review in terms of the implications for policy makers and clinicians or recommendations for future research.

 

Conclusion: This should clearly state the main conclusions of the review in terms of addressing the original aim and objectives.

 

Acknowledgements: Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution. Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Also provide the following, each under their own heading:

  • Competing interests: This section should list specific competing interests associated with any of the authors. If authors declare that no competing interests exist, the article will include a statement to this effect: The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. Read our policy on competing interests.
  • Author contributions:  All authors must meet the criteria for authorship as outlined in the authorship policy and author contribution statement policies.
  • Funding: Provide information on funding if relevant
  • Disclaimer: a statement that the views expressed in the submitted article are his or her own and not an official position of the institution or funder.

 

References: Authors should provide direct references to original research sources whenever possible. References should not be used by authors, editors, or peer reviewers to promote self-interests. Refer to the journal referencing style downloadable on our Formatting Requirements page.

 

 

Checklist full structure


Title: The article’s full title should contain a maximum of 95 characters (including spaces).

 

Abstract: The abstract should be no longer than 250 words and must be written in the past tense. The abstract should give a concise account of the Introduction, Patient presentation, Management and outcome and significance of the matter. The unstructured abstract for an Original Research article should consist of five paragraphs unlabelled Background, Objectives, Method, Results and Conclusion. Then there should follow a labelled paragraph, namely Conservation implications.

  • Background: Why do we care about the problem?  State the context and purpose of the study. (What practical, scientific or theoretical gap is your research filling?)
  • Objectives: What problem are you trying to solve? What is the scope of your work (e.g. is it a generalised approach or for a specific situation)? Be careful not to use too much jargon.
  • Method: How did you go about solving or making progress on the problem? State how the study was performed and which statistical tests were used. (What did you actually do to get the results?) Clearly express the basic design of the study; name or briefly describe the basic methodology used without going into excessive detail. Be sure to indicate the key techniques used.
  • Results: What is the answer? Present the main findings (that is, as a result of completing the procedure or study, state what  you have learnt, invented or created). Identify trends, relative change or differences on answers to questions.
  • Conclusion: What are the implications of your answer? Briefly summarise any potential implications. (What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem or gap identified in your motivation?)
  • Conservation implications: Conservation practitioners should carefully consider the resulting management outcomes by identifying the potential results of the proposed research, the conservation implications of the results and whether these implications call for a change in management practices as well as whether such a change is possible. Key insights into the research results and its future function should be revealed.

Introduction: This section must contain a clear statement of the aims of the work or of the hypotheses being tested. A brief account of the relevant background that supports the rationale of the study  and checklist should also be given. The length of the introduction should not exceed 750 words.


Methods and materials: This section should contain explicit, concise descriptions of all new methods or procedures employed, for example:

  • Describe the type of organisms or materials involved in the study.
  • Describe the site and setting where your field study was conducted.   
  • Describe your experimental design clearly, including a power calculation if appropriate. Note: Additional details can be placed with the online supplementary material.   
  • Describe the protocol for your study in sufficient detail (clear description of all interventions and comparisons) so that other scientists could repeat your work to verify your findings.   
  • Describe how the data were summarised and analysed. Additional details can be placed in the online supplementary information. Do not include lists here, they will be published as supplementary material. To see guidelines on preparing lists, click here.

Results: This section provides a synthesis or integration of the obtained literature grouped or categorised according to some organising or analysis principle. The data are contained in this section, but without consideration of their significance. Results are typically presented in figures or tables, summarising the lists or findings, with no duplication of information presented in the text.


Do not insert long species lists here – these lists should be provided as online supplementary material.


Trustworthiness: This refers to the findings of the study being based on the discovery of human experience as it was experienced and observed by the participants.

  • Reliability: Reliability is the extent to which an experiment, test, or any measuring procedure yields the same result with repeated trials. Without the agreement of independent observers able to replicate research procedures or the ability to use research tools and procedures that yield consistent measurements, researchers would be unable to satisfactorily draw  conclusions, formulate theories or make claims about the ability to generalise  their research.    
  • Validity: Validity refers to the degree to which a study accurately reflects or assesses the specific concept that the researcher is attempting to measure. While reliability is concerned with the accuracy of the actual measuring instrument or procedure, validity is concerned with the study's success at measuring what the researchers set out to measure. Researchers should be concerned with both external and internal validity. External validity refers to the extent to which the results of a study are generalisable or transferable. Internal validity refers to:
  1. The rigor with which the study was conducted (e.g. the study's design, the care taken to conduct measurements and decisions concerning what was and was not measured).
  2. The extent to which the designers of a study have taken into account alternative explanations for any causal relationships they explore.

In studies that do not explore causal relationships, only the first of these definitions should be considered when assessing internal validity.  


Discussion: This section normally contains the following:

  • Discussion on issues relating to the completeness of the list or how representative it is considered to be of the taxa (that is, the system of classification of organisms, e.g. a phylumorderfamilygenus or species) and area covered, as well as any other relevant uncertainties.
  • Discussion on or comparison of previous lists and/or other similar areas.
  • Discussion on species or records of high importance; key issues.
  • Discussion on threats or concerns (where possible).
  • Discussion on  taxonomic updates or new species since last list of area or survey.
  • Discussion on the potential value or uses of the list and associated information.

Conclusion: This should state clearly the main conclusions of the study and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance, with a recommendation for future research (implications for practice). Provide a brief conclusion that restates the objectives, the research design and the results with their meaning.

 

Acknowledgements: Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution. Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Also provide the following, each under their own heading:

  • Competing interests: This section should list specific competing interests associated with any of the authors. If authors declare that no competing interests exist, the article will include a statement to this effect: The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article. Read our policy on competing interests.
  • Author contributions:  All authors must meet the criteria for authorship as outlined in the authorship policy and author contribution statement policies.
  • Funding: Provide information on funding if relevant
  • Disclaimer: a statement that the views expressed in the submitted article are his or her own and not an official position of the institution or funder.

 

References: Authors should provide direct references to original research sources whenever possible. References should not be used by authors, editors, or peer reviewers to promote self-interests. Refer to the journal referencing style downloadable on our Formatting Requirements page.

 

** Guidelines for presenting lists and appendices **

  • Lists may be included in the paper provided they are not too long – that is, when they do not make the paper longer than a generally accepted publication length (about 10 pages).
  • Details will necessarily differ according to different taxonomic groups, but family names should always be provided.
  • Ensure tables are carefully constructed to be clear and unambiguous and always containing:
    • full naming conventions
    • synonyms (or, where multiple synonyms, provide a reference to these)
    • citations for literature sources used for names (if you have more than 25 references that are stipulated for the main manuscript, please place the exceeding references in the online lists as well; e.g. extra references, personal communications, or other sources from which the species lists or data were derived from).
  • Clear indication is needed of who provided the identifications: the author(s), or specialists in an institution such as a herbarium or a museum (include person and institution name).
  • A description of the general localities and more specific features of the study area(s) such as GPS points should be provided. However, in the case of threatened biota, locality details should be excluded (GPS localities, maps etc.), but reference to the relevant authority housing such records may be provided.
  • Information on date of record should be provided (first date of record for the species in the area, as well as most recent record).
  • Maps and figures can be included to provide further details, if appropriate.
  • If herbarium or museum specimens are referred to, please provide relevant details.
  • If data and other information are captured in specific data repositories, please provide details.
  • All symbols and other notations should be well described in the footnote of the checklist as this will ensure the data or lists are still understandable and usable in the future. Use standardised symbols, for example (=) for synonyms.
  • In lists annotated with additional information, such as species conservation status (e.g. red data list status), aspects of their biology will be valuable. If this becomes extensive, more than a single list may be provided: one with the taxonomic details and the other with the ecological details.

For examples of various checklist types see:

Craig, A.J.F.K. et al., 2011, ‘The avifauna of Kwandwe Private Game Reserve, Eastern Cape, South Africa’, Koedoe 53(1), Art. #1015, 5 pages. doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v53i1.1015

 

Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S. et al., 2011, ‘Spiders (Arachnida: Araneae) of the vegetation layer of the Mkambati Nature Reserve, Eastern Cape, South Africa’, Koedoe 53(1), Art. #1058, 10 pages. doi: 10.4102/koedoe.v53i1.1058

 

Spear, D. et al., 2011, ‘Alien species in South Africa’s National Parks (SANParks)’, Koedoe 53(1), Art. #1032, 4 pages. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v53i1.1032 

 

 

Formatting requirements

Checklist

Please review the checklist below to prepare your manuscript. This will help to make sure your submission is complete and gets handled as quickly as possible.

  • CHECK 1: Make sure your manuscript is the right fit for the journal by reviewing the journal information .
  • CHECK 2: Read the publication fees.
  • CHECK 3: Review if the journal publishes the type of article that you wish to submit. Read the types of articles published.
  • CHECK 4: You must be comfortable with publishing in an open access journal. Read our copyrights and licensing policy.
  • CHECK 5: The entire manuscript must be neatly prepared, spell-checked, and adhere to the formatting requirements stipulated in our submission guidelines.
  • CHECK 6: Prepare the cover letter and licensing forms as required on the submissions guidelines.
  • CHECK 7: Read our publication policies, privacy policy and terms of use.
  • CHECK 8: We recommend authors to have ORCID iDs, which can only be assigned by the ORCID Registry. ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) is a nonproprietary alphanumeric code to uniquely identify scientific and other academic authors and contributors. You must conform to their standards for expressing ORCID iDs, and will have the opportunity to include the full URL (e.g. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-0097) during the submission process, that will link to your name when the manuscript is published.

Licencing forms