Reviewer Guidelines

As a reviewer for MycoIndia: Journal of Indian Fungi, your expertise is invaluable in maintaining and enhancing the quality of published research. Your critical assessment ensures that only high-quality, scientifically sound studies contribute to the growing knowledge of fungal biodiversity, taxonomy, ecology, and applied mycology. We appreciate your commitment and have outlined the following guidelines to facilitate the review process. 

Upon receiving a review invitation, please evaluate your ability to review the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Expertise: Are you sufficiently familiar with the subject matter?
• Conflict of Interest: Do you have any personal, financial, or professional conflicts that may affect your impartiality?
• Availability: Can you complete the review within the specified timeline?

If you are unable to review, kindly decline the invitation promptly so that the editorial team can assign it to another qualified reviewer.

The peer review process is strictly confidential. Do not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript outside the review process. If you need to consult a colleague, obtain permission from the editorial office first. Do not use unpublished data or ideas for personal or professional gain.

To ensure a fair and thorough evaluation, consider the following aspects while reviewing:

Initial Assessment
Read the abstract and introduction to understand the study’s scope and objectives. Identify whether the research aligns with MycoIndia's focus on Indian fungal diversity and mycology. 

Methodological Soundness
Assess whether the study design, sampling, and experimental methods are appropriate and well-documented. Evaluate whether statistical analyses are valid and support the conclusions. Ensure the research complies with ethical guidelines, particularly in studies involving biological material, cultures, or field sampling.

Results & Discussion

Verify that the results are presented clearly, with appropriate figures and tables. Check whether the discussion connects findings to existing literature and provides meaningful interpretations. Ensure that conclusions are justified based on the presented data.

References & Citations
Check the completeness and accuracy of citations. Identify missing references to significant relevant studies. Ensure proper acknowledgment of prior work without excessive self-citation.

• Be professional and respectful—critique the work, not the authors.
• Offer specific, actionable feedback to improve the manuscript.
• Highlight both strengths and weaknesses to provide a balanced review.
• Avoid overly brief or vague comments—substantiate critiques with explanations or references.